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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Velocity of Lordosis Angle during Spinal Flexion and Extension
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0050135 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tobias Consmüller, Antonius Rohlmann, Daniel Weinland, Claudia Druschel, Georg N. Duda, William R. Taylor |
| Abstract |
The importance of functional parameters for evaluating the severity of low back pain is gaining clinical recognition, with evidence suggesting that the angular velocity of lordosis is critical for identification of musculoskeletal deficits. However, there is a lack of data regarding the range of functional kinematics (RoKs), particularly which include the changing shape and curvature of the spine. We address this deficit by characterising the angular velocity of lordosis throughout the thoracolumbar spine according to age and gender. The velocity of lumbar back shape changes was measured using Epionics SPINE during maximum flexion and extension activities in 429 asymptomatic volunteers. The difference between maximum positive and negative velocities represented the RoKs. The mean RoKs for flexion decreased with age; 114°/s (20-35 years), 100°/s (36-50 years) and 83°/s (51-75 years). For extension, the corresponding mean RoKs were 73°/s, 57°/s and 47°/s. ANCOVA analyses revealed that age and gender had the largest influence on the RoKs (p<0.05). The Epionics SPINE system allows the rapid assessment of functional kinematics in the lumbar spine. The results of this study now serve as normative data for comparison to patients with spinal pathology or after surgical treatment. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 55 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 28% |
| Engineering | 13 | 23% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 11 | 19% |
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 17 November 2012.
All research outputs
#20,172,971
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#172,801
of 193,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,200
of 159,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,987
of 4,755 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 159,110 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,755 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.