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 |
Comparison of the SF6D, the EQ5D, and the oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-14-148 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lars G Johnsen, Christian Hellum, Øystein P Nygaard, Kjersti Storheim, Jens I Brox, Ivar Rossvoll, Gunnar Leivseth, Margreth Grotle |
| Abstract |
The need for cost effectiveness analyses in randomized controlled trials that compare treatment options is increasing. The selection of the optimal utility measure is important, and a central question is whether the two most commonly used indexes - the EuroQuol 5D (EQ5D) and the Short Form 6D (SF6D) - can be used interchangeably. The aim of the present study was to compare change scores of the EQ5D and SF6D utility indexes in terms of some important measurement properties. The psychometric properties of the two utility indexes were compared to a disease-specific instrument, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), in the setting of a randomized controlled trial for degenerative disc disease. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 214 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 32 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 32 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 9% |
| Other | 43 | 20% |
| Unknown | 48 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 84 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 37 | 17% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 8% |
| Unknown | 62 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 March 2021.
All research outputs
#7,690,174
of 23,394,907 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,561
of 4,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,012
of 195,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#45
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,394,907 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,130 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 195,561 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.