↓ Skip to main content

Outcome Instruments in Spinal Trauma Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Global Spine Journal, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
22 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.
Article details
Title
Outcome Instruments in Spinal Trauma Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis
Published in
Global Spine Journal, March 2016
DOI 10.1055/s-0036-1579745
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Study Design Literature review. Objective To identify outcomes instruments used in spinal trauma surgery over the past decade, their frequency of use, and usage trends. Methods Five top orthopedic journals were reviewed from 2004 to 2013 for clinical studies of surgical intervention in spinal trauma that reported patient-reported outcome instruments use or neurologic function scale use. Publication year, level of evidence (LOE), and outcome instruments were collected for each article and analyzed. Results A total of 58 studies were identified. Among them, 26 named outcome instruments and 7 improvised questionnaires were utilized. The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain was used most frequently (43.1%), followed by the Short Form 36 (34.5%), Frankel grade scale (25.9%), Oswestry Disability Index (20.7%) and American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (15.5%). LOE 4 was most common (37.9%), and eight LOE 1 studies were identified (10.3%). Conclusions The VAS pain scale is the most common outcome instrument used in spinal trauma. The scope of this outcome instrument is limited, and it may not be sufficient for discriminating between more and less effective treatments. A wide variety of functional measures are used, reflecting the need for a disease-specific instrument that accurately measures functional limitation in spinal trauma.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 18%
Researcher 3 14%
Other 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Professor 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 8 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 16 May 2020.
All research outputs
#4,186,058
of 29,359,454 outputs
Outputs from Global Spine Journal
#102
of 1,294 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,519
of 320,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Spine Journal
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,359,454 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,294 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 320,169 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.