↓ Skip to main content

Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with low-back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
34 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
371 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.
Title
Red flags to screen for vertebral fracture in patients presenting with low-back pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008643.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher M Williams, Nicholas Henschke, Christopher G. Maher, Maurits W van Tulder, Bart W Koes, Petra Macaskill, Les Irwig

Abstract

Low-back pain (LBP) is a common condition seen in primary care. A principal aim during a clinical examination is to identify patients with a higher likelihood of underlying serious pathology, such as vertebral fracture, who may require additional investigation and specific treatment. All 'evidence-based' clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of red flags to screen for serious causes of back pain. However, it remains unclear if the diagnostic accuracy of red flags is sufficient to support this recommendation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 371 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Romania 1 <1%
Unknown 363 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 73 20%
Student > Bachelor 57 15%
Other 32 9%
Student > Postgraduate 29 8%
Researcher 28 8%
Other 64 17%
Unknown 88 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 146 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 60 16%
Social Sciences 11 3%
Psychology 11 3%
Sports and Recreations 9 2%
Other 29 8%
Unknown 105 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 24 January 2022.
All research outputs
#888,268
of 21,742,867 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,979
of 12,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,876
of 280,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#79
of 447 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,742,867 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 280,825 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 447 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.