↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the comparative effectiveness of Tai Chi versus physical therapy for knee osteoarthritis: design and rationale for a randomized trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
287 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
Assessing the comparative effectiveness of Tai Chi versus physical therapy for knee osteoarthritis: design and rationale for a randomized trial
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6882-14-333
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chenchen Wang, Maura D Iversen, Timothy McAlindon, William F Harvey, John B Wong, Roger A Fielding, Jeffrey B Driban, Lori Lyn Price, Ramel Rones, Tressa Gamache, Christopher H Schmid

Abstract

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) causes pain and long-term disability with annual healthcare costs exceeding $185 billion in the United States. Few medical remedies effectively influence the course of the disease. Finding effective treatments to maintain function and quality of life in patients with knee OA is one of the national priorities identified by the Institute of Medicine. We are currently conducting the first comparative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomized trial of Tai Chi versus a physical-therapy regimen in a sample of patients with symptomatic and radiographically confirmed knee OA. This article describes the design and conduct of this trial.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 287 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 283 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 15%
Student > Bachelor 25 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 8%
Researcher 23 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 7%
Other 65 23%
Unknown 86 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 74 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 15%
Sports and Recreations 15 5%
Social Sciences 12 4%
Neuroscience 7 2%
Other 42 15%
Unknown 95 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 27 January 2022.
All research outputs
#850,980
of 23,001,641 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#130
of 3,641 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,419
of 239,251 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#5
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,001,641 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 239,251 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.