↓ Skip to main content

Prevention of low back pain: effect, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility of maintenance care – study protocol for a randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, April 2014
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 (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 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
Prevention of low back pain: effect, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility of maintenance care – study protocol for a randomized clinical trial
Published in
Trials, April 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-102
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andreas Eklund, Iben Axén, Alice Kongsted, Malin Lohela-Karlsson, Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde, Irene Jensen

Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) is a prevalent condition and a socioeconomic problem in many countries. Due to its recurrent nature, the prevention of further episodes (secondary prevention), seems logical. Furthermore, when the condition is persistent, the minimization of symptoms and prevention of deterioration (tertiary prevention), is equally important. Research has largely focused on treatment methods for symptomatic episodes, and little is known about preventive treatment strategies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Unknown 167 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 18%
Researcher 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Other 15 9%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 30 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Sports and Recreations 6 3%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 41 24%

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 20 November 2014.
All research outputs
#5,313,697
of 21,362,911 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,856
of 5,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,300
of 206,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,362,911 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 5,443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 206,950 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them