The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Upper Trunk Brachial Plexus Palsy Following Chiropractic Manipulation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2016.00211 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John Cunningham, Wayne Hoskins, Scott Ferris |
| Abstract |
Upper trunk brachial plexus palsy can result from high-energy trauma and has never been reported following spinal manipulation. The case is presented of a patient who developed an acute brachial plexus upper trunk palsy following spinal manipulative therapy. Discussion is made on the incidence of complications following manipulation and recommendations to prospectively capture all serious complications. Risks exist with spinal manipulative therapy. Neurological injury can occur. Risk assessment and re-examination should occur at every visit. Large rigorous prospective studies are required to identify the true incidence of serious complications resulting from manipulative therapy and the benefit:risk ratio. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 20% |
| Australia | 2 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 7% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 7% |
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 47% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 53% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 20% |
| Scientists | 2 | 13% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 14% |
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 18% |
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 22 December 2016.
All research outputs
#3,670,494
of 25,754,670 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#2,764
of 14,774 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,614
of 418,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#6
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,754,670 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 14,774 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 418,328 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 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 91% of its contemporaries.