↓ Skip to main content

Development of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients with neck pain likely to benefit from cervical traction and exercise

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, January 2009
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
446 Mendeley
Title
Development of a clinical prediction rule to identify patients with neck pain likely to benefit from cervical traction and exercise
Published in
European Spine Journal, January 2009
DOI 10.1007/s00586-008-0859-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicole H. Raney, Evan J. Petersen, Tracy A. Smith, James E. Cowan, Daniel G. Rendeiro, Gail D. Deyle, John D. Childs

Abstract

The objective of the study was to develop a clinical prediction rule (CPR) to identify patients with neck pain likely to improve with cervical traction. The study design included prospective cohort of patients with neck pain referred to physical therapy. Development of a CPR will assist clinicians in classifying patients with neck pain likely to benefit from cervical traction. Eighty patients with neck pain received a standardized examination and then completed six sessions of intermittent cervical traction and cervical strengthening exercises twice weekly for 3 weeks. Patient outcome was classified at the end of treatment, based on perceived recovery according to the global rating of change. Patients who achieved a change > or =+6 ("A great deal better" or "A very great deal better") were classified as having a successful outcome. Univariate analyses (t tests and chi-square) were conducted on historical and physical examination items to determine potential predictors of successful outcome. Variables with a significance level of P < or = 0.15 were retained as potential prediction variables. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs) were then calculated for all variables with a significant relationship with the reference criterion of successful outcome. Potential predictor variables were entered into a step-wise logistic regression model to determine the most accurate set of clinical examination items for prediction of treatment success. Sixty-eight patients (38 female) were included in data analysis of which 30 had a successful outcome. A CPR with five variables was identified: (1) patient reported peripheralization with lower cervical spine (C4-7) mobility testing; (2) positive shoulder abduction test; (3) age > or =55; (4) positive upper limb tension test A; and (5) positive neck distraction test. Having at least three out of five predictors present resulted in a +LR equal to 4.81 (95% CI = 2.17-11.4), increasing the likelihood of success with cervical traction from 44 to 79.2%. If at least four out of five variables were present, the +LR was equal to 23.1 (2.5-227.9), increasing the post-test probability of having improvement with cervical traction to 94.8%. This preliminary CPR provides the ability to a priori identify patients with neck pain likely to experience a dramatic response with cervical traction and exercise. Before the rule can be implemented in routine clinical practice, future studies are necessary to validate the rule. The CPR developed in this study may improve clinical decision-making by assisting clinicians in identifying patients with neck pain likely to benefit from cervical traction and exercise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 446 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 2%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 426 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 76 17%
Other 73 16%
Student > Postgraduate 51 11%
Researcher 42 9%
Student > Master 41 9%
Other 108 24%
Unknown 55 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 231 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 91 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 4%
Sports and Recreations 17 4%
Psychology 7 2%
Other 18 4%
Unknown 65 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 17 November 2017.
All research outputs
#3,356,383
of 23,668,780 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#341
of 4,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,788
of 174,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,668,780 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,852 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 174,009 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.