| Title |
Accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule and NEXUS to screen for clinically important cervical spine injury in patients following blunt trauma: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Canadian Medical Association Journal, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1503/cmaj.120675 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zoe A Michaleff, Chris G Maher, Arianne P Verhagen, Trudy Rebbeck, Chung-Wei Christine Lin |
| Abstract |
There is uncertainty about the optimal approach to screen for clinically important cervical spine (C-spine) injury following blunt trauma. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the Canadian C-spine rule and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria, 2 rules that are available to assist emergency physicians to assess the need for cervical spine imaging. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 5 | 56% |
| United States | 2 | 22% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 56% |
| Members of the public | 3 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 293 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 288 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 54 | 18% |
| Researcher | 34 | 12% |
| Other | 31 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 8% |
| Other | 58 | 20% |
| Unknown | 66 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 145 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 48 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 1% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 15 | 5% |
| Unknown | 73 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 12 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,042,173
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#1,475
of 8,671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,485
of 172,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#18
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 172,685 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.