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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Reliability of clinical tests to evaluate nerve function and mechanosensitivity of the upper limb peripheral nervous system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-10-11 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Annina B Schmid, Florian Brunner, Hannu Luomajoki, Ulrike Held, Lucas M Bachmann, Sabine Künzer, Michel W Coppieters |
| Abstract |
Clinical tests to assess peripheral nerve disorders can be classified into two categories: tests for afferent/efferent nerve function such as nerve conduction (bedside neurological examination) and tests for increased mechanosensitivity (e.g. upper limb neurodynamic tests (ULNTs) and nerve palpation). Reliability reports of nerve palpation and the interpretation of neurodynamic tests are scarce. This study therefore investigated the intertester reliability of nerve palpation and ULNTs. ULNTs were interpreted based on symptom reproduction and structural differentiation. To put the reliability of these tests in perspective, a comparison with the reliability of clinical tests for nerve function was made. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 39% |
| United States | 1 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Ireland | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 6% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 89% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 537 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | <1% |
| Chile | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
| Portugal | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 519 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 116 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 58 | 11% |
| Other | 49 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 45 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 39 | 7% |
| Other | 138 | 26% |
| Unknown | 92 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 214 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 119 | 22% |
| Sports and Recreations | 24 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 2% |
| Other | 46 | 9% |
| Unknown | 112 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 09 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,467,690
of 25,852,155 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#459
of 4,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,154
of 187,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#3
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,852,155 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,457 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 187,690 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 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.