↓ Skip to main content

Routine versus needs-based MRI in patients with prolonged low back pain: a comparison of duration of treatment, number of clinical contacts and referrals to surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Chiropractic & Osteopathy, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
Title
Routine versus needs-based MRI in patients with prolonged low back pain: a comparison of duration of treatment, number of clinical contacts and referrals to surgery
Published in
Chiropractic & Osteopathy, July 2010
DOI 10.1186/1746-1340-18-19
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rikke K Jensen, Manniche Claus, Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde

Abstract

The routine use of radiology is normally discouraged in patients with low back pain (LBP). Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) provides clinicians and patients with detailed knowledge of spinal structures and has no known physical side effects. It is possible that insight into the pathological changes in LBP patients could affect patient management. However, to our knowledge, this has never been tested. Until June 2006, all patients at our specialised out-patient public clinic were referred for MRI on the basis of clinical indications, economic constraints, and availability of MRI (the "needs-based MRI" group). As a new approach, we now refer all patients who meet certain criteria for routine up-front MRI before the clinical examination (the "routine MRI" group).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 16%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Student > Master 3 9%
Other 9 28%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 47%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Sports and Recreations 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 4 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 January 2016.
All research outputs
#8,194,369
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Chiropractic & Osteopathy
#1
of 1 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,898
of 106,993 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chiropractic & Osteopathy
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 106,993 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.