↓ Skip to main content

Patient Reported Outcomes in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Spine Deformity, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Patient Reported Outcomes in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Bibliometric Analysis
Published in
Spine Deformity, December 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.jspd.2014.12.004
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Bibliometric analysis. To identify patient-reported outcomes (PROs) used in adult spinal deformity (ASD) research over the past decade, their frequency, and usage trends. The emphasis on PROs is increasing along with the demand for evidence-based medicine. However, there is currently no standardization or consensus on which PROs ought to be used in ASD. Five top orthopedics journals were reviewed from 2004 to 2013 for clinical studies of surgical intervention in ASD that report PROs. Publication year, level of evidence (LOE), and PROs were collected for each article. Errors and inconsistencies of PRO score reporting were analyzed for the 3 most commonly used PROs. A total of 84 PRO studies were published in ASD literature over the period studied. The number of PRO studies published increased from 1 in 2004 to 16 in 2013. We identified 24 unique PROs. The Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) was the most frequently used single instrument (47.8%), followed by the Scoliosis Research Society (SRS)-22 (35.6%) and SRS-24 (21.1%), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) and visual analog scale (VAS) were tied (13.3%). The combined use of SRS instruments exceeded ODI use. LOE 4 was most common (42.9%), and no LOE 1 studies were identified. Incomplete preoperative and postoperative PRO scores was the most common reporting inconsistency, occurring in 16% of articles using ODI, 58% of articles using SRS-24, and 22% of articles using SRS-22. The frequency of studies using PROs in ASD research has increased over the past decade, yet quality studies and standardization are lacking. In general, the ODI and SRS instruments are emerging as standards in ASD surgery; however, frequent use of many uncommon PROs presents a challenge for interstudy comparisons. Additionally, of the top 5 instruments used, only SF-36 is routinely used for cost-effectiveness studies, making procedure cost-outcome decisions difficult.

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 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 47 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 %
Denmark 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 16 34%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 19 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 July 2015.
All research outputs
#22,880,741
of 28,007,254 outputs
Outputs from Spine Deformity
#258
of 378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,383
of 407,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Spine Deformity
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,007,254 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 407,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.