↓ Skip to main content

Moxibustion for treating knee osteoarthritis: study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, March 2013
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
13 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
202 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
Moxibustion for treating knee osteoarthritis: study protocol of a multicentre randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6882-13-59
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seunghoon Lee, Kun Hyung Kim, Tae-Hun Kim, Jung-Eun Kim, Joo-Hee Kim, Jung Won Kang, Kyung-Won Kang, So-Young Jung, Ae-Ran Kim, Hyo-Ju Park, Mi-Suk Shin, Kwon-Eui Hong, Ho-Sueb Song, Jin-Bong Choi, Hyung-Jun Kim, Sun-Mi Choi

Abstract

The treatment of knee osteoarthritis, which is a major cause of disability among the elderly, is typically selected from multidisciplinary options, including complementary and alternative medicine. Moxibustion has been used in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis in Korea to reduce pain and improve physical activity. However, there is no sufficient evidence of its effectiveness, and it cannot therefore be widely recommended for treating knee osteoarthritis. We designed a randomised controlled clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, and qualitative characteristics of moxibustion treatment of knee osteoarthritis compared to usual care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Unknown 201 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 17%
Student > Master 31 15%
Researcher 21 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 6%
Other 41 20%
Unknown 44 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 13%
Sports and Recreations 10 5%
Unspecified 8 4%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 51 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 26 April 2013.
All research outputs
#2,666,597
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#478
of 3,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,943
of 195,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#12
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,619 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 195,964 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.