↓ Skip to main content

Research quality in scoliosis conservative treatment: state of the art

Overview of attention for article published in Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Research quality in scoliosis conservative treatment: state of the art
Published in
Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13013-015-0046-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabio Zaina, Michele Romano, Patrick Knott, Jean Claude de Mauroy, Theodoros B. Grivas, Tomasz Kotwicki, Toru Maruyama, Joseph O’Brien, Manuel Rigo, Stefano Negrini

Abstract

The publication of research in the field of conservative treatment of scoliosis is increasing after a long period of progressive decline. In 2014, three high quality and scientifically sound papers gave new strength to the conservative scoliosis approach. The efficacy of treatment over observation was demonstrated by two RCTs for bracing, and one for scoliosis-specific exercises provided by a physical therapist. It is difficult to design strong studies in this field due to the long time needed for follow up and the challenge of recruiting patients and families willing to be involved in the decision process. Nevertheless, the main methodological errors are not related to the study design but rather on the way it is performed, which very frequently affects the reliability of results. The most common errors are: selection bias, with many studies including functional rather than a true structural scoliosis; inappropriate outcome measures, utilizing parameters not related to scoliosis progression or quality of life; inappropriate follow up, reporting only immediate results and not addressing end of growth results; an incorrect interpretation of findings, with an overestimation of results; and missing the evaluation of skeletal maturity, without which results cannot be considered stable. Being aware of these errors is extremely important both for authors and for readers in order to avoid questionable practices based on inconclusive studies that could harm patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 68 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 21%
Researcher 12 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Professor 4 6%
Other 20 29%
Unknown 8 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 17%
Engineering 4 6%
Unspecified 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 12 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,572,276
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders
#51
of 320 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,387
of 277,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scoliosis and Spinal Disorders
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 320 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 277,390 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.