↓ Skip to main content

Enhanced implementation of low back pain guidelines in general practice: study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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
Enhanced implementation of low back pain guidelines in general practice: study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial
Published in
Implementation Science, October 2013
DOI 10.1186/1748-5908-8-124
Pubmed ID
Authors

Allan Riis, Cathrine Elgaard Jensen, Flemming Bro, Helle Terkildsen Maindal, Karin Dam Petersen, Martin Bach Jensen

Abstract

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines may improve treatment quality, but the uptake of guideline recommendations is often incomplete and slow. Recently new low back pain guidelines are being launched in Denmark. The guidelines are considered to reduce personal and public costs. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether a complex, multifaceted implementation strategy of the low back pain guidelines will reduce secondary care referral and improve patient outcomes compared to the usual simple implementation strategy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 120 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 16%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Master 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 6%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 31 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 20%
Psychology 7 6%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 41 34%

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 01 November 2013.
All research outputs
#6,922,550
of 21,343,037 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,210
of 1,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,049
of 207,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#90
of 123 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,343,037 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 1,677 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 207,440 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 123 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.