↓ Skip to main content

Comparative effectiveness of a complex Ayurvedic treatment and conventional standard care in osteoarthritis of the knee – study protocol for a randomized 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 (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
348 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Comparative effectiveness of a complex Ayurvedic treatment and conventional standard care in osteoarthritis of the knee – study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-149
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudia M Witt, Andreas Michalsen, Stephanie Roll, Antonio Morandi, Shivnarain Gupta, Mark Rosenberg, Ludwig Kronpaß, Elmar Stapelfeldt, Syed Hissar, Matthias Müller, Christian Kessler

Abstract

Traditional Indian Ayurvedic medicine uses complex treatment approaches, including manual therapies, lifestyle and nutritional advice, dietary supplements, medication, yoga, and purification techniques. Ayurvedic strategies are often used to treat osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee; however, no systematic data are available on their effectiveness in comparison with standard care. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of complex Ayurvedic treatment in comparison with conventional methods of treating OA symptoms in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 348 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 345 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 67 19%
Student > Bachelor 42 12%
Researcher 38 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 7%
Other 70 20%
Unknown 82 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 105 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 60 17%
Psychology 17 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 3%
Unspecified 10 3%
Other 58 17%
Unknown 86 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 29 May 2021.
All research outputs
#5,483,387
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,895
of 5,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,612
of 280,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#73
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 280,760 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 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 69% of its contemporaries.