The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 246 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Evaluation of wet-cupping therapy for persistent non-specific low back pain: a randomised, waiting-list controlled, open-label, parallel-group pilot trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, June 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6215-12-146 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jong-In Kim, Tae-Hun Kim, Myeong Soo Lee, Jung Won Kang, Kun Hyung Kim, Jun-Yong Choi, Kyung-Won Kang, Ae-Ran Kim, Mi-Suk Shin, So-Young Jung, Sun-mi Choi |
| Abstract |
Persistent non-specific low back pain (PNSLBP) is one of the most frequently experienced types of back pain around the world. Wet-cupping is a common intervention for various pain conditions, especially in Korea. In this context, we conducted a pilot study to determine the effectiveness and safety of wet-cupping treatment for PNSLBP. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Korea, Republic of | 2 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 241 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 35 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 34 | 14% |
| Researcher | 21 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 7% |
| Other | 49 | 20% |
| Unknown | 71 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 76 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 38 | 15% |
| Sports and Recreations | 9 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 38 | 15% |
| Unknown | 72 | 29% |
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 24 August 2017.
All research outputs
#6,455,115
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#45
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,195
of 127,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 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 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
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 127,243 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 72% 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.