↓ Skip to main content

Contributions of myofascial pain in diagnosis and treatment of shoulder pain. A randomized control trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, July 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
366 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
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
Contributions of myofascial pain in diagnosis and treatment of shoulder pain. A randomized control trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, July 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-10-92
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara Perez-Palomares, Bárbara Oliván-Blázquez, Ana Mª Arnal-Burró, Orlando Mayoral-Del Moral, Elena Gaspar-Calvo, Mª Luisa de-la-Torre-Beldarraín, Elena López-Lapeña, Marina Pérez-Benito, Victoria Ara-Loriente, Laura Romo-Calvo

Abstract

Rotator cuff tendinopathy and subacromial impingement syndrome present complex patomechanical situations, frequent difficulties in clinical diagnosis and lack of effectiveness in treatment. Based on clinical experience, we have therefore considered the existence of another pathological entity as the possible origin of pain and dysfunction. The hypothesis of this study is to relate subacromial impingement syndrome (SIS) with myofascial pain syndrome (MPS), since myofascial trigger points (MTrPs) cause pain, functional limitation, lack of coordination and alterations in quality of movement, even prior to a tendinopathy. MTrPs can coexist with any degenerative subacromial condition. If they are not taken into consideration, they could perpetuate and aggravate the problem, hindering diagnosis and making the applied treatments ineffective.The aims and methods of this study are related with providing evidence of the relationship that may exist between this condition and MPS in the diagnosis and treatment of rotator cuff tendonitis and/or SIS.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 366 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 356 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 75 20%
Student > Bachelor 61 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 8%
Student > Postgraduate 27 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 7%
Other 80 22%
Unknown 70 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 165 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 71 19%
Sports and Recreations 15 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 2%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Other 25 7%
Unknown 76 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 February 2014.
All research outputs
#17,679,313
of 22,696,971 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,882
of 4,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,751
of 110,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#15
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,696,971 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 110,346 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.