↓ Skip to main content

Bee venom acupuncture for the treatment of chronic low back pain: study protocol for a randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
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.
Title
Bee venom acupuncture for the treatment of chronic low back pain: study protocol for a randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled trial
Published in
Trials, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-16
Pubmed ID
Authors

Byung-Kwan Seo, Jun-Hwan Lee, Won-Suk Sung, Eun-Mo Song, Dae-Jean Jo

Abstract

Chronic non-specific low back pain is the most common medical problem for which patients seek complementary and alternative medical treatment, including bee venom acupuncture. However, the effectiveness and safety of such treatments have not been fully established by randomized clinical trials. The aim of this study is to determine whether bee venom acupuncture is effective for improving pain intensity, functional status and quality of life of patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 126 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 21%
Student > Master 22 17%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 9 7%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 25 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 31 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 January 2015.
All research outputs
#904,488
of 4,711,672 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#415
of 1,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,148
of 284,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#15
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,711,672 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,512 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 284,726 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.