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 |
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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 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 | 131 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 19 | 14% |
| Researcher | 18 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 14% |
| Unknown | 37 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 30 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 20% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 48 | 36% |
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
#7,434,249
of 22,727,570 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,246
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,848
of 211,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#31
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,727,570 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 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. 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 211,693 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 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.