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 |
Efficacy of acupuncture for chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndromes: study protocol for a randomized, sham acupuncture-controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12906-016-1428-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zongshi Qin, Zhiwei Zang, Jiani Wu, Jing Zhou, Zhishun Liu |
| Abstract |
Chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) affects many adult men worldwide. The currently available therapies offer little or no proven benefit for CP/CPPS. We designed this study to assess the efficacy of acupuncture therapy for the treatment of CP/CPPS. This study is designed as a randomized, sham acupuncture-controlled trial. We will compare patients with CP/CPPS in an acupuncture group and a sham acupuncture group. Sixty-eight patients will be randomly allocated to receive acupuncture or sham acupuncture. The treatments will consist of 30-min sessions, three times weekly, for 8 weeks. The primary outcome measure is change in the weekly mean National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) total score from baseline through the 8-week treatment period. Secondary measures include the NIH-CPSI subscale scores, the total International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), patients' response rate, and patient satisfaction after treatment. We will also assess changes in the NIH-CPSI total score from baseline at the 20(th) and 32(nd) week of follow-up. This is a randomized, sham-controlled trial of acupuncture treatment for CP/CPPS. The results of this trial will provide more evidence on whether acupuncture is efficacious for treating CP/CPPS. Clinical Trials.gov NCT02588274. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 13% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 7% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 4% |
| Unknown | 15 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#20,441,465
of 22,996,001 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,988
of 3,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,503
of 312,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#49
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,996,001 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,641 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 312,932 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.