↓ Skip to main content

How to diagnose cervicogenic dizziness

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Physiotherapy, September 2017
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 (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
72 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
How to diagnose cervicogenic dizziness
Published in
Archives of Physiotherapy, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40945-017-0040-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander S. Reiley, Frank M. Vickory, Sarah E. Funderburg, Rachel A. Cesario, Richard A. Clendaniel

Abstract

Cervicogenic dizziness (CGD) is a clinical syndrome characterized by the presence of dizziness and associated neck pain. There are no definitive clinical or laboratory tests for CGD and therefore CGD is a diagnosis of exclusion. It can be difficult for healthcare professionals to differentiate CGD from other vestibular, medical and vascular disorders that cause dizziness, requiring a high level of skill and a thorough understanding of the proper tests and measures to accurately rule in or rule out competing diagnoses. Consequently, the purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic diagnostic approach to enable healthcare providers to accurately diagnose CGD. This narrative will outline a stepwise process for evaluating patients who may have CGD and provide steps to exclude diagnoses that can present with symptoms similar to those seen in CGD, including central and peripheral vestibular disorders, vestibular migraine, labyrinthine concussion, cervical arterial dysfunction, and whiplash associated disorder.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 72 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 21%
Unspecified 16 14%
Other 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 12%
Other 33 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 29%
Unspecified 21 19%
Neuroscience 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 5 4%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 18 November 2019.
All research outputs
#293,019
of 13,863,605 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Physiotherapy
#4
of 55 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,753
of 269,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Physiotherapy
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,863,605 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 55 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 269,921 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them