↓ Skip to main content

The McMaster Toronto Arthritis patient preference questionnaire (MACTAR): a methodological study of reliability and minimal detectable change after a 6 week-period of acupuncture treatment in…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
The McMaster Toronto Arthritis patient preference questionnaire (MACTAR): a methodological study of reliability and minimal detectable change after a 6 week-period of acupuncture treatment in patients with rheumatoid arthritis
Published in
BMC Research Notes, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13104-017-2991-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nina Brodin, Wilhelmus J. A. Grooten, Sara Stråt, Elin Löfberg, Helene Alexanderson

Abstract

The McMaster Toronto Arthritis patient preference questionnaire (MACTAR) is a semi-structured interview consisting of a baseline and a follow-up interview. The MACTAR baseline is reliable and valid, however the reliability of the MACTAR follow-up is scarcely described. The aim of this study was to describe aspects of reliability and ability to detect changes of the Swedish MACTAR follow-up following acupuncture treatment in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. The study was of Single Subject Experimental Design, with a 2-week non-interventional A-phase and a 6-week intervention B-phase. Eight individuals with RA, age 30-68 years, were included. MACTAR baseline was performed once followed by five assessments with MACTAR follow-up during the A-phase and another ten assessments during the B-phase. Reliability statistics were calculated for measurements 1-3 during the A-phase and the ability to detect effects of acupuncture treatment was tested by celeration lines in the B-phase. The MACTAR follow-up was highly reliable (ICC = 0.7-0.9, SEM = 2.3-4.3, and SDD = 6.2-11.7). Visual and statistical analyses indicated that the MACTAR follow-up could detect effects on individual- and group levels after acupuncture treatment, indicating that the MACTAR follow-up seems to be reliable and is able to detect effects of acupuncture treatment in RA.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 20%
Student > Master 5 11%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 14 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 14 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 06 December 2017.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,261
of 4,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#339,622
of 445,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#135
of 193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,514 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 445,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 193 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.