↓ Skip to main content

Effects of spinal manipulation on sensorimotor function in low back pain patients – A randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Manual Therapy, August 2015
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 (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
271 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
Effects of spinal manipulation on sensorimotor function in low back pain patients – A randomised controlled trial
Published in
Manual Therapy, August 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.math.2015.08.001
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) is a major health problem in industrialized societies. Spinal manipulation (SM) is often used for treating LBP, though the therapeutic mechanisms remain elusive. Research suggests that sensorimotor changes may be involved in LBP. It is hypothesized that SM may generate its beneficial effects by affecting sensorimotor functions. To compare changes in sensorimotor function, as measured by postural sway and response to sudden load, in LBP patients following the delivery of high-velocity low amplitude (HVLA)-SM or low-velocity variable amplitude (LVVA)-SM versus a sham control intervention. A three-arm (1:1:1 ratio) randomized controlled trial. A total of 221 participants who were between 21 and 65 years, having LBP intensity (numerical rating scale) ≥4 at either phone screen or the first baseline visit and ≥2 at phone screen and both baseline visits, and Quebec Task Force diagnostic classifications of 1, 2, 3 or 7 were enrolled to receive four SM treatments over two weeks. Study outcomes were measured at the first and fifth visits with the examiners blinded from participant group assignment. The LVVA-SM group demonstrated a significant increase in medial-to-lateral postural excursion on the soft surface at the first visit when compared to the control group. No other significant between-group differences were found for the two sensorimotor tests, whether during the first visit or over two weeks. It appears that short-term SM does not affect the sensorimotor functions as measured by postural sway and response to sudden load in this study.

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.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users 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 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 268 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 16%
Student > Bachelor 34 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 7%
Researcher 18 7%
Other 44 16%
Unknown 90 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 61 23%
Sports and Recreations 12 4%
Neuroscience 9 3%
Arts and Humanities 5 2%
Other 14 5%
Unknown 104 38%
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 15 January 2023.
All research outputs
#3,984,565
of 27,776,330 outputs
Outputs from Manual Therapy
#63
of 228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,483
of 278,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Manual Therapy
#2
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,776,330 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 228 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 278,167 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.