↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of wet-cupping therapy for persistent non-specific low back pain: a randomised, waiting-list controlled, open-label, parallel-group pilot trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, June 2011
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 (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 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
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

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 2 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 216 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 35 16%
Student > Master 33 15%
Researcher 20 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Other 14 6%
Other 45 20%
Unknown 55 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 37 17%
Sports and Recreations 9 4%
Social Sciences 7 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 34 15%
Unknown 57 26%

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
#5,421,182
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,861
of 5,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,331
of 112,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#9
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th 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 68% 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 112,928 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 74% of its contemporaries.