↓ Skip to main content

Outcomes indicators and a risk classification system for spinal manipulation under anesthesia: a narrative review and proposal

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
13 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
Outcomes indicators and a risk classification system for spinal manipulation under anesthesia: a narrative review and proposal
Published in
Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12998-018-0177-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dennis DiGiorgi, John L. Cerf, Daniel S. Bowerman

Abstract

Over a period of decades chiropractors have utilized spinal manipulation under anesthesia (SMUA) to treat chronic back and neck pain. As an advanced form of manual therapy, SMUA is reserved for the patient whose condition has proven refractory to office-based manipulation and other modes of conservative care. Historically, the protocols and guidelines put forth by chiropractic MUA proponents have served as the clinical compass for directing MUA practice. With many authors and MUA advocates having focused primarily on anticipated benefit, the published literature contains no resource dedicated to treatment precautions and contraindications. Also absent from current relevant literature is acknowledgement or guidance on the preliminary evidence that may predict poor clinical outcomes with SMUA. This review considers risk and unfavorable outcomes indicators in therapeutic decision making for spinal manipulation under anesthesia. A new risk classification system is proposed that identifies patient safety and quality of care interests for a procedure that remains without higher-level research evidence. A scale which categorizes risk and outcome potential for SMUA is offered for the chiropractic clinician, which aims to elevate the standard of care and improve patient selection through the incorporation of specific indices from existing medical literature.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 13 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 38%
Student > Bachelor 3 23%
Student > Postgraduate 2 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 15%
Unspecified 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 7 54%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 8%
Unspecified 1 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,726,412
of 12,745,229 outputs
Outputs from Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
#229
of 326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,537
of 272,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,745,229 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 272,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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