↓ Skip to main content

Thoracic dysfunction in whiplash-associated disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Thoracic dysfunction in whiplash-associated disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0201-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicola R Heneghan, Richard Smith, Alison Rushton

Abstract

Whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) research has largely focused on the neck, yet symptoms often include other areas. The prevalence of acute thoracic spine pain is reported ~66 %, which is perhaps unsurprising given the mechanism of injury involves a forceful loading/eccentric contraction of posterior thoracic structures such as the trapezius. Many individuals with WAD experience disability and pain beyond normal tissue healing time, termed chronic WAD. With the thoracic spine contributing to neck mobility, and 23 % of individuals complaining of thoracic pain 1 year post injury, it is time to look beyond the neck to fully understand the anatomical dysfunction in WAD. A systematic review protocol has been designed and will be reported in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). A sensitive topic-based search strategy is planned from inception to the current date. Databases, grey literature and registers will be searched using terms and keywords derived from a scoping search. Two reviewers will independently search information sources, assess studies for inclusion and extract data. A third reviewer will check for accuracy. Data to be extracted include summary data: sample size and characteristics, timescales to reflect disorder state, patient-reported or performance-based measure and findings. Risk of bias within studies will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Quantitative meta-analysis approach will be used for homogenous data and where appropriate presented using subgroups. All other results will be presented using narrative summaries. Subgroups will, where possible, be based on patient-reported or performance-based measure of dysfunction and/or stage of condition (acute/sub-acute or chronic). Strength of the overall body of evidence will be assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). This is the first study to bring together evidence of thoracic dysfunction post whiplash and provide new insights into the scope and nature of thoracic dysfunction in WAD. With current management options being largely focused to a primary neck complaint and many patients going to become chronic in their presentations, this review may stimulate research and clinical interest in a largely under investigated, yet anatomically and kinematically related, spinal region. PROSPERO CRD42015026983 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
France 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 70 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 23%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 12%
Unspecified 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 22 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 28%
Unspecified 10 14%
Sports and Recreations 4 5%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Other 7 9%

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 27 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,106,075
of 13,565,336 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#526
of 1,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,961
of 266,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#11
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,565,336 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 266,422 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.