↓ Skip to main content

Rehabilitation following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
45 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
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
Rehabilitation following surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009644.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison H McGregor, Katrin Probyn, Suzie Cro, Caroline J Doré, A Kim Burton, Federico Balagué, Tamar Pincus, Jeremy Fairbank

Abstract

Lumbar spinal stenosis is a common cause of back pain that can also give rise to pain in the buttock, thigh or leg, particularly when walking. Several possible treatments are available, of which surgery appears to be best at restoring function and reducing pain. Surgical outcome is not ideal, and a sizeable proportion of patients do not regain good function. No accepted evidence-based approach to postoperative care is known-a fact thathas prompted this review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 152 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 17%
Researcher 18 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Other 16 10%
Other 31 20%
Unknown 28 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 13%
Social Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 6 4%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 39 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 16 December 2019.
All research outputs
#453,559
of 14,237,171 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,278
of 10,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,090
of 254,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,237,171 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,906 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 254,915 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.