↓ 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 (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
323 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 50 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 323 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 308 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 69 21%
Student > Bachelor 46 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 32 10%
Student > Postgraduate 31 10%
Researcher 31 10%
Other 88 27%
Unknown 26 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 177 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 51 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 4%
Psychology 8 2%
Sports and Recreations 8 2%
Other 33 10%
Unknown 32 10%

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 08 February 2021.
All research outputs
#256,500
of 16,983,585 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#538
of 11,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,982
of 156,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,983,585 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 11,604 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 156,576 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 100 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 99% of its contemporaries.