↓ Skip to main content

Cervical spine reposition errors after cervical flexion and extension

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Cervical spine reposition errors after cervical flexion and extension
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1454-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xu Wang, René Lindstroem, Niels Peter Bak Carstens, Thomas Graven-Nielsen

Abstract

Upright head and neck position has been frequently applied as baseline for diagnosis of neck problems. However, the variance of the position after cervical motions has never been demonstrated. Thus, it is unclear if the baseline position varies evenly across the cervical joints. The purpose was to assess reposition errors of upright cervical spine. Cervical reposition errors were measured in twenty healthy subjects (6 females) using video-fluoroscopy. Two flexion movements were performed with a 20 s interval, the same was repeated for extension, with an interval of 5 min between flexion and extension movements. Cervical joint positions were assessed with anatomical landmarks and external markers in a Matlab program. Reposition errors were extracted in degrees (initial position minus reposition) as constant errors (CEs) and absolute errors (AEs). Twelve of twenty-eight CEs (7 joints times 4 repositions) exceeded the minimal detectable change (MDC), while all AEs exceeded the MDC. Averaged AEs across the cervical joints were larger after 5 min' intervals compared to 20 s intervals (p < 0.05). This is the first study to demonstrate single joint reposition errors of the cervical spine. The cervical spine returns to the upright positions with a 2° average absolute difference after cervical flexion and extension movements in healthy adults.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 59 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 22%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Professor 3 5%
Other 16 27%
Unknown 12 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 24%
Neuroscience 6 10%
Engineering 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 15 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 April 2017.
All research outputs
#13,183,138
of 22,962,258 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,820
of 4,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,359
of 308,534 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#41
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,962,258 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,085 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 308,534 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.