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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
State of the art of current 3-D scoliosis classifications: a systematic review from a clinical perspective
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12984-015-0083-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sabrina Donzelli, Salvatore Poma, Luca Balzarini, Alberto Borboni, Stefano Respizzi, Jorge Hugo Villafane, Fabio Zaina, Stefano Negrini |
| Abstract |
Scoliosis is a complex three dimensional (3D) deformity: the current lack of a 3D classification could hide something fundamental for scoliosis prognosis and treatment. A clear picture of the actually existing 3D classifications lacks. The aim of this systematic review was to identify all the 3D classification systems proposed until now in the literature with the aim to identify similarities and differences mainly in a clinical perspective.After a MEDLINE Data Base review, done in November 2013 using the search terms "Scoliosis/classification" [Mesh] and "scoliosis/classification and Imaging, three dimensional" [Mesh], 8 papers were included with a total of 1164 scoliosis patients, 23 hyperkyphosis and 25 controls, aged between 8 and 20 years, with curves from 10° to 81° Cobb, and various curve patterns. Six studies looked at the whole 3D spine and found classificatory parameters according to planes, angles and rotations, including: Plane of Maximal Curvature (PMC), Best Fit Plane, Cobb angles in bodily plane and PMC, Axial rotation of the apical vertebra and of the PMC, and geometric 3D torsion. Two studies used the regional (spinal) Top View of the spine and found classificatory parameters according to its geometrical properties (area, direction and barycenter) including: Ratio of the frontal and the sagittal size, Phase, Directions (total, thoracic and lumbar), and Shift. It was possible to find similarities among 10 out of the 16 the sub-groups identified by different authors with different methods in different populations.In summation, the state of the art of 3D classification systems include 8 studies which showed some comparability, even though of low level. The most useful one in clinical everyday practice, is far from being defined. More than 20 years passed since the definition of the third dimension of the scoliosis deformity, now the time has come for clinicians and bioengineers to start some real clinical application, and develop means to make this approach an everyday tool. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 84 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 16% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 12 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 34% |
| Engineering | 15 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 26 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 October 2015.
All research outputs
#20,298,249
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#1,137
of 1,279 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,874
of 280,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
#15
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,279 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 280,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.