↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Relationships between craniocervical posture and pain-related disability in patients with cervico-craniofacial pain

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
Title
Relationships between craniocervical posture and pain-related disability in patients with cervico-craniofacial pain
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, July 2015
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s84668
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ibai López-de-Uralde-Villanueva, Hector Beltran-Alacreu, Alba Paris-Alemany, Santiago Angulo-Díaz-Parreño, Roy La Touche

Abstract

This cross-sectional correlation study explored the relationships between craniocervical posture and pain-related disability in patients with chronic cervico-craniofacial pain (CCFP). Moreover, we investigated the test-retest intrarater reliability of two craniocervical posture measurements: head posture (HP) and the sternomental distance (SMD). Fifty-three asymptomatic subjects and 60 CCFP patients were recruited. One rater measured HP and the SMD using a cervical range of motion device and a digital caliper, respectively. The Spanish versions of the neck disability index and the craniofacial pain and disability inventory were used to assess pain-related disability (neck disability and craniofacial disability, respectively). We found no statistically significant correlations between craniocervical posture and pain-related disability variables (HP and neck disability [r=0.105; P>0.05]; HP and craniofacial disability [r=0.132; P>0.05]; SMD and neck disability [r=0.126; P>0.05]; SMD and craniofacial disability [r=0.195; P>0.05]). A moderate positive correlation was observed between HP and SMD for both groups (asymptomatic subjects, r=0.447; CCFP patients, r=0.52). Neck disability was strongly positively correlated with craniofacial disability (r=0.79; P<0.001). The test-retest intrarater reliability of the HP measurement was high for asymptomatic subjects and CCFP patients (intraclass correlation coefficients =0.93 and 0.81, respectively) and for SMD (intra-class correlation coefficient range between 0.76 and 0.99); the test-retest intrarater reliability remained high when evaluated 9 days later. The HP standard error of measurement range was 0.54-0.75 cm, and the minimal detectable change was 1.27-1.74 cm. The SMD standard error of measurement was 2.75-6.24 mm, and the minimal detectable change was 6.42-14.55 mm. Independent t-tests showed statistically significant differences between the asymptomatic individuals and CCFP patients for measures of craniocervical posture, but these differences were very small (mean difference =1.44 cm for HP; 6.24 mm for SMD). The effect sizes reached by these values were estimated to be small for SMD (d=0.38) and medium for HP (d=0.76). The results showed no statistically significant correlations between craniocervical posture and variables of pain-related disability, but a strong correlation between the two variables of disability was found. Our findings suggest that small differences between CCFP patients and asymptomatic subjects exist with respect to the two measurements used to assess craniocervical posture (HP and SMD), and these measures demonstrated high test-retest intrarater reliability for both CCFP patients and asymptomatic subjects.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 116 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Student > Bachelor 11 9%
Other 9 8%
Other 32 27%
Unknown 20 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 26%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 23 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 September 2015.
All research outputs
#4,144,654
of 25,576,275 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#445
of 1,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,548
of 277,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#6
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,576,275 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,996 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 done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 277,917 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.