↓ Skip to main content

Coping with Persistent Pain, Effectiveness Research into Self-management (COPERS): statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Coping with Persistent Pain, Effectiveness Research into Self-management (COPERS): statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-15-59
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brennan C Kahan, Karla Diaz-Ordaz, Kate Homer, Dawn Carnes, Martin Underwood, Stephanie JC Taylor, Stephen A Bremner, Sandra Eldridge

Abstract

The Coping with Persistent Pain, Effectiveness Research into Self-management (COPERS) trial assessed whether a group-based self-management course is effective in reducing pain-related disability in participants with chronic musculoskeletal pain. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for the COPERS trial.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 45 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 26%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Librarian 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 23%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 12 26%

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 22 October 2014.
All research outputs
#3,423,449
of 4,404,859 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,150
of 1,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,925
of 121,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#96
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,404,859 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,394 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. 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 121,865 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 99 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.