↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Patient misconceptions concerning lumbar spondylosis diagnosis and treatment.

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, February 2015
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 (#13 of 2,043)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
293 X users
facebook
25 Facebook pages
googleplus
4 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
Title
Patient misconceptions concerning lumbar spondylosis diagnosis and treatment.
Published in
Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, February 2015
DOI 10.3171/2014.10.spine14537
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric W. Franz, J. Nicole Bentley, Patricia P. S. Yee, Kate W. C. Chang, Jennifer Kendall-Thomas, Paul Park, Lynda J. S. Yang

Abstract

OBJECT Patient outcome measures are becoming increasingly important in the evaluation of health care quality and physician performance. Of the many novel measures currently being explored, patient satisfaction and other subjective measures of patient experience are among the most heavily weighted. However, these subjective measures are strongly influenced by a number of factors, including patient demographics, level of understanding of the disorder and its treatment, and patient expectations. In the present study, patients referred to a neurosurgery clinic for degenerative spinal disorders were surveyed to determine their understanding of lumbar spondylosis diagnosis and treatment. METHODS A multiple-choice, 6-question survey was distributed to all patients referred to a general neurosurgical spine clinic at a tertiary care center over a period of 11 months as a quality improvement initiative to assist the provider with individualized patient counseling. The survey consisted of questions designed to assess patient understanding of the role of radiological imaging in the diagnosis and treatment of low-back and leg pain, and patient perception of the indications for surgical compared with conservative management. Demographic data were also collected. RESULTS A total of 121 surveys were included in the analysis. More than 50% of the patients indicated that they would undergo spine surgery based on abnormalities found on MRI, even without symptoms; more than 40% of patients indicated the same for plain radiographs. Similarly, a large proportion of patients (33%) believed that back surgery was more effective than physical therapy in the treatment of back pain without leg pain. Nearly one-fifth of the survey group (17%) also believed that back injections were riskier than back surgery. There were no significant differences in survey responses among patients with a previous history of spine surgery compared with those without previous spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS These results show that a surprisingly high percentage of patients have misconceptions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of lumbar spondylosis, and that these misconceptions persist in patients with a history of spine surgery. Specifically, patients overemphasize the value of radiological studies and have mixed perceptions of the relative risk and effectiveness of surgical intervention compared with more conservative management. These misconceptions have the potential to alter patient expectations and decrease satisfaction, which could negatively impact patient outcomes and subjective valuations of physician performance. While these results are preliminary, they highlight a need for improved communication and patient education during surgical consultation for lumbar spondylosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 293 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 103 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Other 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 28 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 23%
Sports and Recreations 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 32 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 208. 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 07 December 2021.
All research outputs
#189,286
of 25,539,438 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
#13
of 2,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,021
of 270,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine
#2
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,539,438 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 270,571 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 97% of its contemporaries.