↓ Skip to main content

Controlled Laboratory Comparison Study of Motion With Football Equipment in a Destabilized Cervical Spine

Overview of attention for article published in Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Controlled Laboratory Comparison Study of Motion With Football Equipment in a Destabilized Cervical Spine
Published in
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.1177/2325967115601853
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Numerous studies have shown that there are better alternatives to log rolling patients with unstable spinal injuries, although this method is still commonly used for placing patients onto a spine board. No previous studies have examined transfer maneuvers involving an injured football player with equipment in place onto a spine board. To test 3 different transfer maneuvers of an injured football player onto a spine board to determine which method most effectively minimizes spinal motion in an injured cervical spine model. Controlled laboratory study. Five whole, lightly embalmed cadavers were fitted with shoulder pads and helmets and tested both before and after global instability was surgically created at C5-C6. An electromagnetic motion analysis device was used to assess the amount of angular and linear motion with sensors placed above and below the injured segment during transfer. Spine-boarding techniques evaluated were the log roll, the lift and slide, and the 8-person lift. The 8-person lift technique resulted in the least amount of angular and linear motion for all planes tested as compared with the lift-and-slide and log-roll techniques. This reached statistical significance for lateral bending (P = .031) and medial-lateral translation (P = .030) when compared with the log-roll maneuver. The lift-and-slide technique was significantly more effective at reducing motion than the log roll for axial rotation (P = .029) and lateral bending (P = .006). The log roll resulted in the most motion at an unstable cervical injury as compared with the other 2 spine-boarding techniques examined. The 8-person lift and lift-and-slide techniques may both be more effective than the log roll at reducing unwanted cervical spine motion when spine boarding an injured football player. Reduction of such motion is critical in the prevention of iatrogenic injury.

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 9 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 30 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 %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 20%
Student > Master 5 17%
Other 4 13%
Researcher 3 10%
Librarian 2 7%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 5 17%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 20%
Sports and Recreations 4 13%
Arts and Humanities 2 7%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 April 2026.
All research outputs
#6,738,103
of 32,407,304 outputs
Outputs from Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
#896
of 3,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,170
of 296,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,407,304 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,152 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 71% 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 296,255 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 60% of its contemporaries.