| Title |
The pain drawing as an instrument for identifying cervical spine nerve involvement in chronic whiplash-associated disorders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s104747 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gabriella Bernhoff, Maria Landén Ludvigsson, Gunnel Peterson, Bo Christer Bertilson, Madeleine Elf, Anneli Peolsson |
| Abstract |
The aim of the study was to investigate the psychometric properties of a standardized assessment of pain drawing with regard to clinical signs of cervical spine nerve root involvement. This cross-sectional study included data collected in a randomized controlled study. Two hundred and sixteen patients with chronic (≥6 months) whiplash-associated disorders, grade 2 or 3, were included in this study. The validity, sensitivity, and specificity of a standardized pain drawing assessment for determining nerve root involvement were analyzed, compared to the clinical assessment. In addition, we analyzed the interrater reliability with 50 pain drawings. Agreement was poor between the standardized pain drawing assessment and the clinical assessment (kappa =0.11, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.20). Sensitivity was high (93%), but specificity was low (19%). Interrater reliability was good (kappa =0.64, 95% CI: 0.53 to 0.76). The standardized pain drawing assessment of nerve root involvement in chronic whiplash-associated disorders was not in agreement with the clinical assessment. Further research is warranted to optimize the utilization of a pain/discomfort drawing as a supportive instrument for identifying nerve involvement in cervical spinal injuries. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 50% |
| Germany | 1 | 25% |
| Mexico | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| Unknown | 62 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 27% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 13% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Researcher | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 20% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 18 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 15 June 2016.
All research outputs
#7,855,664
of 25,582,611 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#785
of 1,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,199
of 354,173 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#14
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,582,611 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 354,173 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.