↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Management of sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis with nonoperative care is medical resource-intensive and costly in a United States commercial payer population.

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Management of sacroiliac joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis with nonoperative care is medical resource-intensive and costly in a United States commercial payer population.
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, February 2014
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s54158
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stacey Ackerman, David W. Polly, Tim Holt, John T. Cummings, Tyler Knight

Abstract

Low back pain is common and originates in the sacroiliac (SI) joint in 15%-30% of cases. Traditional SI joint disruption/degenerative sacroiliitis treatments include nonoperative care or open SI joint fusion. To evaluate the usefulness of newly developed minimally-invasive technologies, the costs of traditional treatments must be better understood. We assessed the costs of nonoperative care for SI joint disruption to commercial payers in the United States (US).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 6%
Unknown 17 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 33%
Student > Master 3 17%
Other 2 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Other 3 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 17%
Unspecified 3 17%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Other 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 March 2014.
All research outputs
#1,987,585
of 4,507,509 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#73
of 156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,457
of 127,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#8
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 156 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 127,099 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.