↓ Skip to main content

Cervical radiculopathy

Overview of attention for article published in Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 494)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
6 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
764 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cervical radiculopathy
Published in
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s12178-016-9349-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sravisht Iyer, Han Jo Kim

Abstract

Cervical radiculopathy is a common clinical scenario. Patients with radiculopathy typically present with neck pain, arm pain, or both. We review the epidemiology of cervical radiculopathy and discuss the diagnosis of this condition. This includes an overview of the pertinent findings on the patient history and physical examination. We also discuss relevant clinical syndromes that must be considered in the differential diagnosis including peripheral nerve entrapment syndromes and shoulder pathology. The natural history of cervical radiculopathy is reviewed and options for management are discussed. These options include conservative management, non-operative modalities such as physical therapy, steroid injections, and operative intervention. While the exact indications for surgical intervention have not yet been elucidated, we provide an overview of the available literature regarding indications and discuss the timing of intervention. The surgical outcomes of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF), cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA), and posterior cervical foraminotomy (PCF) are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 764 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 763 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 144 19%
Student > Master 76 10%
Student > Postgraduate 50 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 50 7%
Other 48 6%
Other 88 12%
Unknown 308 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 221 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 122 16%
Neuroscience 22 3%
Sports and Recreations 18 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 1%
Other 45 6%
Unknown 325 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 31 March 2024.
All research outputs
#973,604
of 23,215,490 outputs
Outputs from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#22
of 494 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,709
of 340,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,215,490 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 494 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 340,149 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them