↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Characteristics of Modic changes in cervical kyphosis and their association with axial neck pain

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Characteristics of Modic changes in cervical kyphosis and their association with axial neck pain
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, July 2017
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s138361
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yonghui An, Jia Li, Yongqian Li, Yong Shen

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate characteristics of Modic changes in cervical kyphosis (CK) and their association with axial neck pain. Study participants included 286 asymptomatic or symptomatic patients with CK (mean age = 54.2 ± 12.2 years) who were consecutively enrolled from March 2009 to October 2015. Clinical and radiographic evaluations were performed at a university outpatient department. CK was classified as global type, reverse sigmoid type, or sigmoid type. There were 138 participants with global type CK, 103 with reverse sigmoid type CK, and 45 with sigmoid type CK. Of the 286 participants, 102 had Modic changes (Modic-1 in 38 segments and Modic-2 in 75 segments). Spinal cord compression grade and disc degeneration occurred more frequently in the group with axial neck pain compared to the group without pain. Angular motion was decreased in those with axial neck pain (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 7.8°±4.6°) compared to those who were asymptomatic (mean ± SD 8.9°±5.1°; P<0.001). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, Modic changes were associated with axial neck pain (odds ratio =5.356; 95% confidence interval =1.314-12.800; P<0.001). Modic changes occur most commonly in association with CK global type and less commonly with reverse sigmoid type and sigmoid type. Modic changes are associated with axial neck pain in patients with CK.

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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Unknown 9 56%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 13%
Social Sciences 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Unknown 9 56%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,488,947
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,162
of 1,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,676
of 314,080 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#48
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 314,080 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.