Integrating jigsaw puzzle thinking into practice: the assessment of cervical spine radiculopathy
Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care, ISSN: 1751-4266, Vol: 17, Issue: 3, Page: 135-141
2023
- 11Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures11
- Readers11
- 11
Review Description
Purpose of review: Cervical spine radiculopathy (CSR) presents a complex socioeconomic problem for patients, clinicians, families, employers and healthcare systems. Due to the heterogeneity of clinical presentation and underlying mechanisms, clinical assessment can be challenging. This review will examine the literature on the underlying pathophysiology and studies investigating the holistic assessment strategies for this disabling condition. The authors will focus particular attention on the psychological factors associated with CSR and the physical and imaging strategies to establish a diagnosis. Recent findings: Contemporary CSR assessment should identify the underlying pathomechanisms and how this may impact the somatosensory nervous system integrity and function. No physical assessment test in isolation will establish CSR diagnosis; therefore, clinicians should utilise a cluster of tests and recognise the potential limitations as part of a clinical reasoning framework. The assessment of the somatosensory nervous system can provide insights into particular subgroups of CSR presentation, which may provide interesting opportunities to continue to enhance individualised assessment and management strategies for CSR. The interplay between psychological factors can influence the diagnosis and recovery times for a person with CSR, and clinicians should continue to explore how these factors may influence a person's prognosis. The authors will discuss the opportunities for future research and limitations of contemporary approaches to assessment, underpinned by evidence, and how this supports a clinical assessment to establish CSR diagnosis. Summary: Research should continue to investigate how clinicians assess the interplay between physical and psychological factors to inform the establishment of CSR. Specifically, there is a need to investigate the validity and reliability of combining somatosensory, motor and imaging assessment findings to reach a diagnosis and inform onward management plans.
Bibliographic Details
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know