↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Prognostic value of quantitative sensory testing in low back pain: a systematic review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, September 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 (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Prognostic value of quantitative sensory testing in low back pain: a systematic review of the literature
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, September 2016
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s115659
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Marcuzzi, Catherine M Dean, Paul J Wrigley, Rosemary J Chakiath, Julia M Hush

Abstract

Quantitative sensory testing (QST) measures have recently been shown to predict outcomes in various musculoskeletal and pain conditions. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the emerging body of evidence investigating the prognostic value of QST measures in people with low back pain (LBP). The protocol for this review was prospectively registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. An electronic search of six databases was conducted from inception to October 2015. Experts in the field were contacted to retrieve additional unpublished data. Studies were included if they were prospective longitudinal in design, assessed at least one QST measure in people with LBP, assessed LBP status at follow-up, and reported the association of QST data with LBP status at follow-up. Statistical pooling of results was not possible due to heterogeneity between studies. Of 6,408 references screened after duplicates removed, three studies were finally included. None of them reported a significant association between the QST measures assessed and the LBP outcome. Three areas at high risk of bias were identified which potentially compromise the validity of these results. Due to the paucity of available studies and the methodological shortcomings identified, it remains unknown whether QST measures are predictive of outcome in LBP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 1%
Unknown 87 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 22%
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 14%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 7 8%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 26%
Neuroscience 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 22 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 November 2016.
All research outputs
#5,378,711
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#576
of 1,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,869
of 348,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#12
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 348,369 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 33 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 63% of its contemporaries.