↓ Skip to main content

Red flags to screen for malignancy in patients with low-back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
49 tweeters
facebook
8 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
292 Mendeley
citeulike
3 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 malignancy in patients with low-back pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008686.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas Henschke, Christopher G. Maher, Raymond WJG Ostelo, Henrica CW de Vet, Petra Macaskill, Les Irwig

Abstract

The identification of serious pathologies, such as spinal malignancy, is one of the primary purposes of the clinical assessment of patients with low-back pain (LBP). Clinical guidelines recommend awareness of "red flag" features from the patient's clinical history and physical examination to achieve this. However, there are limited empirical data on the diagnostic accuracy of these features and there remains very little information on how best to use them in clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 49 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 292 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 3 1%
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 3 1%
Australia 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 277 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 64 22%
Student > Bachelor 41 14%
Researcher 32 11%
Student > Postgraduate 30 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 27 9%
Other 77 26%
Unknown 21 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 167 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 4%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Psychology 6 2%
Other 29 10%
Unknown 27 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. 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 26 May 2019.
All research outputs
#194,603
of 14,351,725 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#427
of 10,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,763
of 146,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,351,725 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 146,873 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 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 98% of its contemporaries.