↓ Skip to main content

F-waves of peroneal and tibial nerves in the differential diagnosis and follow-up evaluation of L5 and S1 radiculopathies

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
13 Mendeley
Title
F-waves of peroneal and tibial nerves in the differential diagnosis and follow-up evaluation of L5 and S1 radiculopathies
Published in
European Spine Journal, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00586-018-5650-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chaojun Zheng, Jingjuan Liang, Cong Nie, Yu Zhu, Feizhou Lu, Jianyuan Jiang

Abstract

To investigate F-wave as a method to identify a specific root lesion of L5 or S1 and to quantitatively evaluate the severity and progression of motor root lesions in lumbosacral radiculopathies (LR). Both peroneal and tibial F-waves were performed bilaterally in 142 patients with unilateral L5 or S1 radiculopathies and 37 controls along with Medical Research Council (MRC) evaluation, and soleus H-reflexes were tested bilaterally in 78 of these 142 cases. Both F-wave and MRC were re-evaluated approximately 1 year after initial examination in 65 patients. Abnormal peroneal F-waves were found in 34 patients with L5 radiculopathy (34/67, 50.7%) along with normal tibial F-waves and soleus H-reflexes in all tested cases. By contrast, 27 patients with S1 radiculopathy presented abnormal tibial F-waves (27/76, 36.0%) along with normal peroneal F-waves in all 76 cases and abnormal soleus H-reflexes in 38 of 47 (80.9%) cases. There were significant differences in involved side F-duration among different MRC scales in both radiculopathy groups (P < 0.05). Follow-up analysis demonstrated slow progression of both F-wave abnormalities and muscle weakness in patients undergoing conservative treatment (P < 0.05). Comparisons of F-waves between the same nerve on both sides and between peroneal and tibial nerves in the same leg may clearly increase the validity of F-waves for evaluating a specific motor root lesion of L5 or S1. Furthermore, a quantitative comparison of F-waves may provide additional information on the severity of individual root lesions and their progression even in the early stages of disease. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 15%
Student > Postgraduate 2 15%
Researcher 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 3 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 23%
Neuroscience 2 15%
Mathematics 1 8%
Unknown 4 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 June 2018.
All research outputs
#17,978,863
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,293
of 4,686 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,122
of 328,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#24
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,686 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,349 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.