↓ Skip to main content

Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for cervicogenic headache: a single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, July 2017
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 (74th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
170 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
Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for cervicogenic headache: a single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Research Notes, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2651-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aleksander Chaibi, Heidi Knackstedt, Peter J. Tuchin, Michael Bjørn Russell

Abstract

Cervicogenic headache is a disabling headache where pharmacological management have limited effect. Thus, non-pharmacological management is warranted. Our objective was therefore to investigate the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy versus placebo (sham manipulation) and control (continued usual but non-manual management) for cervicogenic headache in a prospective 3-armed single-blinded, placebo, randomized controlled trial of 17 months' duration. Nineteen participants were equally randomized into the three groups, and 12 participants completed the randomized controlled trial. Headache frequency improved at all time points in the chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy and the placebo group. Headache index improved in the chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy group at all time points, while it improved at 6 and 12 months' follow-up in the placebo group. The control group remained unchanged during the whole study period. Adverse events were few, mild and transient. Blinding was concealed throughout the RCT. Thus, our results suggest that manual-therapy might be a safe treatment option for participants with cervicogenic headache, but data need to be confirmed in a randomized controlled trial with sufficient sample size and statistical power. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01687881, 11 September 2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 170 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 170 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 19%
Student > Bachelor 27 16%
Researcher 11 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 6 4%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 67 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 46 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 35 21%
Sports and Recreations 5 3%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 1%
Other 8 5%
Unknown 71 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 October 2022.
All research outputs
#4,994,639
of 24,721,757 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#763
of 4,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#80,541
of 320,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#31
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,721,757 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,449 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 320,996 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.