↓ Skip to main content

Reliability of the evaluation of posterior ligamentous complex injury in thoracolumbar spine trauma with the use of computed tomography scan

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Reliability of the evaluation of posterior ligamentous complex injury in thoracolumbar spine trauma with the use of computed tomography scan
Published in
European Spine Journal, January 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00586-016-4377-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alecio Cristino Evangelista Santos Barcelos, Andrei Fernandes Joaquim, Ricardo Vieira Botelho

Abstract

The AOSpine thoracolumbar (TL) spine injury classification system is based mainly on computed tomography (CT). The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the reliability of CT scan in the diagnosis of posterior ligamentous complex (PLC) injury in thoracolumbar spine trauma (TLST). We performed a cross-sectional study of 43 patients with TLST. CT scans were evaluated independently by three spine surgeons on two separate occasions, 2 months apart. The reliability of PLC injury parameters was assessed by the Kappa coefficient (κ) and the average percentage of these parameters was established. Injuries were classified according to the AOSpine classification as type A (compression), B (anterior and/or posterior tension band injuries) or C (dislocation) injury and the reliability of the classification was calculated. On average, PLC injury was identified in 91.4 % of type B or C injuries. Tension band injury and dislocation were found in 90.5 % of type B and 93.2 % of type C injuries. The intraobserver reliability for the PLC injury parameters ranged from 0.518 to 1.000, except for increased interspinous distance (IID). Interobserver reliability ranged from 0.303 to 0.688. When the patients were evaluated as a whole, dislocation showed the highest κ (0.656 and 0.688). When type A or B injuries were assessed, the highest κ were found for IID (0.533 and 0.511) and tension band injury (0.486 and 0.452). The κ for AOSpine classification was 0.526 and 0.645 in both assessments. In this study, the use of CT scan as the only diagnostic tool could identify PLC injury in most cases and demonstrated satisfactory reliability. Dislocation could satisfactorily diagnose type C injury, while IID was the best parameter to differentiate between type A and B injuries.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 28%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 61%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 April 2016.
All research outputs
#14,245,321
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#1,746
of 4,639 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,895
of 396,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#36
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,639 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
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 396,493 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 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 66% of its contemporaries.