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 |
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of interventions for fibromyalgia: a protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-18 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jason W Busse, Shanil Ebrahim, Gaelan Connell, Eric A Coomes, Paul Bruno, Keshena Malik, David Torrance, Trung Ngo, Karin Kirmayr, Daniel Avrahami, John J Riva, Peter Struijs, David Brunarski, Stephen J Burnie, Frances LeBlanc, Ivan A Steenstra, Quenby Mahood, Kristian Thorlund, Victor M Montori, Vishalini Sivarajah, Paul Alexander, Milosz Jankowski, Wiktoria Lesniak, Markus Faulhaber, Małgorzata M Bała, Stefan Schandelmaier, Gordon H Guyatt |
| Abstract |
Fibromyalgia is associated with substantial socioeconomic loss and, despite considerable research including numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews, there exists uncertainty regarding what treatments are effective. No review has evaluated all interventional studies for fibromyalgia, which limits attempts to make inferences regarding the relative effectiveness of treatments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 33% |
| United States | 3 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 22% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 126 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 9% |
| Other | 31 | 24% |
| Unknown | 20 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 55 | 43% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 8% |
| Psychology | 9 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 22 | 17% |
| Unknown | 22 | 17% |
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 21 August 2015.
All research outputs
#3,158,769
of 23,164,913 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#590
of 2,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,979
of 197,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,164,913 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,014 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 197,024 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.