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 |
The risk associated with spinal manipulation: an overview of reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0458-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sabrina Mai Nielsen, Simon Tarp, Robin Christensen, Henning Bliddal, Louise Klokker, Marius Henriksen |
| Abstract |
Spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) is a widely used manual treatment, but many reviews exist with conflicting conclusions about the safety of SMT. We performed an overview of reviews to elucidate and quantify the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with SMT. We searched five electronic databases from inception to December 8, 2015. We included reviews on any type of studies, patients, and SMT technique. Our primary outcome was SAEs. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). Since there were insufficient data for calculating incidence rates of SAEs, we used an alternative approach; the conclusions regarding safety of SMT were extracted for each review, and the communicated opinion were judged by two reviewers independently as safe, harmful, or neutral/unclear. Risk ratios (RRs) of a review communicating that SMT is safe and meeting the requirements for each AMSTAR item, were calculated. We identified 283 eligible reviews, but only 118 provided data for synthesis. The most frequently described adverse events (AEs) were stroke, headache, and vertebral artery dissection. Fifty-four reviews (46%) expressed that SMT is safe, 15 (13%) expressed that SMT is harmful, and 49 reviews (42%) were neutral or unclear. Thirteen reviews reported incidence estimates for SAEs, roughly ranging from 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 250,000,000 manipulations. Low methodological quality was present, with a median of 4 of 11 AMSTAR items met (interquartile range, 3 to 6). Reviews meeting the requirements for each of the AMSTAR items (i.e. good internal validity) had a higher chance of expressing that SMT is safe. It is currently not possible to provide an overall conclusion about the safety of SMT; however, the types of SAEs reported can indeed be significant, sustaining that some risk is present. High quality research and consistent reporting of AEs and SAEs are needed. PROSPERO CRD42015030068 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 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 | 14 | 24% |
| United States | 4 | 7% |
| Spain | 4 | 7% |
| Denmark | 2 | 3% |
| Peru | 1 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Argentina | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 25 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 47 | 80% |
| Scientists | 5 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 234 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 44 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 13% |
| Other | 20 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 54 | 23% |
| Unknown | 55 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 74 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 68 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 6% |
| Unknown | 59 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 124. 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 05 April 2024.
All research outputs
#343,731
of 25,766,791 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#32
of 2,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,102
of 323,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,766,791 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 2,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 323,915 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 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 96% of its contemporaries.