| Title |
Optimal cut-off points of lumbar pedicle thickness as a morphological parameter to predict lumbar spinal stenosis syndrome: a retrospective study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s168990 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sang Joon An, Soo Il Choi, Keum Nae Kang, Syn-Hae Yoon, Young Uk Kim |
| Abstract |
Lumbar spinal stenosis syndrome (LSSS) is induced by factors such as ligamentum flavum hypertrophy, facet joint hypertrophy and disc degeneration. However, the role of lumbar pedicle (LP) in LSSS has yet to be evaluated. We devised a new morphological parameter called the lumbar pedicle thickness (LPT) to evaluate the connection between LSSS and the LP. We hypothesized that the LPT is a major morphological parameter in the diagnosis of LSSS. The LPT data were collected from 136 patients diagnosed with LSSS. A total of 99 control subjects underwent lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as part of a detailed medical assessment. Axial T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) images were acquired from all the participants. Using our picture archiving and communication system, we analyzed the thickness of the LP at the level of L5 vertebra on MRI. The average LPT was 9.46±1.81 mm in the control group and 13.26±1.98 mm in the LSSS group. LSSS patients showed a significantly greater LPT (P<0.001) than the control group. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed an optimal cutoff point of 11.33 mm for the LPT, with 83.8% sensitivity, 83.8% specificity and area under the curve of 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-0.96). A higher LPT was associated with a higher possibility of LSSS, suggesting its importance in the evaluation of patients with LSSS. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 2 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Researcher | 1 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 33% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
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 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#17,966,645
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,348
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,726
of 335,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#60
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 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 1,773 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 335,775 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 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.