↓ Skip to main content

Physical examination for lumbar radiculopathy due to disc herniation in patients with low-back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2010
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 (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
157 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
358 Mendeley
connotea
3 Connotea
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
Physical examination for lumbar radiculopathy due to disc herniation in patients with low-back pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007431.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniëlle AWM van der Windt, Emmanuel Simons, Ingrid I Riphagen, Carlo Ammendolia, Arianne P Verhagen, Mark Laslett, Walter Devillé, Rick A Deyo, Lex M Bouter, Henrica CW de Vet, Bert Aertgeerts

Abstract

Low-back pain with leg pain (sciatica) may be caused by a herniated intervertebral disc exerting pressure on the nerve root. Most patients will respond to conservative treatment, but in carefully selected patients, surgical discectomy may provide faster relief of symptoms. Primary care clinicians use patient history and physical examination to evaluate the likelihood of disc herniation and select patients for further imaging and possible surgery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 358 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
Switzerland 3 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 341 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 75 21%
Student > Bachelor 58 16%
Other 33 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 8%
Other 82 23%
Unknown 50 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 171 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 67 19%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Sports and Recreations 7 2%
Other 31 9%
Unknown 63 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 27 October 2020.
All research outputs
#628,192
of 16,287,919 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,628
of 11,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,144
of 100,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,287,919 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 11,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 100,351 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 51 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 90% of its contemporaries.