↓ Skip to main content

Distinguishing Radiculopathies from Mononeuropathies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users

Readers on

mendeley
56 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
Distinguishing Radiculopathies from Mononeuropathies
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, July 2016
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2016.00111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Robblee, Hans Katzberg

Abstract

Identifying "where is the lesion" is particularly important in the approach to the patient with focal dysfunction where a peripheral localization is suspected. This article outlines a methodical approach to the neuromuscular patient in distinguishing focal neuropathies versus radiculopathies, both of which are common presentations to the neurology clinic. This approach begins with evaluation of the sensory examination to determine whether there are irritative or negative sensory signs in a peripheral nerve or dermatomal distribution. This is followed by evaluation of deep tendon reflexes to evaluate if differential hyporeflexia can assist in the two localizations. Finally, identification of weak muscle groups unique to a nerve or myotomal pattern in the proximal and distal extremities can most reliably assist in a precise localization. The article concludes with an application of the described method to the common scenario of distinguishing radial neuropathy versus C7 radiculopathy in the setting of a wrist drop and provides additional examples for self-evaluation and reference.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 55 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 15 27%
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 13 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 16%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 14 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 01 March 2024.
All research outputs
#3,087,186
of 24,138,997 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#1,977
of 13,162 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,004
of 361,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#11
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,138,997 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,162 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. 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 361,148 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.