↓ Skip to main content

Evidence for a general stiffening motor control pattern in neck pain: a cross sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Evidence for a general stiffening motor control pattern in neck pain: a cross sectional study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12891-015-0517-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingebrigt Meisingset, Astrid Woodhouse, Ann- Katrin Stensdotter, Øyvind Stavdahl, Håvard Lorås, Sigmund Gismervik, Hege Andresen, Kristian Austreim, Ottar Vasseljen

Abstract

Neck pain is associated with several alterations in neck motion and motor control. Previous studies have investigated single constructs of neck motor control, while few have applied a comprehensive set of tests to investigate cervical motor control. This comparative cross- sectional study aimed to investigate different motor control constructs in neck pain patients and healthy controls. A total of 166 subjects participated in the study, 91 healthy controls (HC) and 75 neck pain patients (NP) with long-lasting moderate to severe neck pain. Neck flexibility, proprioception, head steadiness, trajectory movement control, and postural sway were assessed using a 3D motion tracking system (Liberty). The different constructs of neck motion and motor control were based on tests used in previous studies. Neck flexibility was lower in NP compared to HC, indicated by reduced cervical ROM and conjunct motion. Movement velocity was slower in NP compared to HC. Tests of head steadiness showed a stiffer movement pattern in NP compared to HC, indicated by lower head angular velocity. NP patients departed less from a predictable trajectory movement pattern (figure of eight) compared to healthy controls, but there was no difference for unpredictable movement patterns (the Fly test). No differences were found for postural sway in standing with eyes open and eyes closed. However, NP patients had significantly larger postural sway when standing on a balance pad. Proprioception did not differ between the groups. Largest effect sizes (ES) were found for neck flexibility (ES range: 0.2- 0.8) and head steadiness (ES range: 1.3- 2.0). Neck flexibility was the only construct that showed a significant association with current neck pain, while peak velocity was the only variable that showed a significant association with kinesiophobia. NP patients showed an overall stiffer and more rigid neck motor control pattern compared to HC, indicated by lower neck flexibility, slower movement velocity, increased head steadiness and more rigid trajectory head motion patterns. Only neck flexibility showed a significant association with clinical features in NP patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 14%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 10 23%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 32%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Computer Science 2 5%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 04 December 2018.
All research outputs
#3,163,601
of 13,976,728 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#635
of 2,769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,851
of 229,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,976,728 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 229,509 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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