↓ Skip to main content

Upper thoracic spine mobilization and mobility exercise versus upper cervical spine mobilization and stabilization exercise in individuals with forward head posture: a randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
38 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
4 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
415 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
Upper thoracic spine mobilization and mobility exercise versus upper cervical spine mobilization and stabilization exercise in individuals with forward head posture: a randomized clinical trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1889-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Juchul Cho, Eunsang Lee, Seungwon Lee

Abstract

Although upper cervical and upper thoracic spine mobilization plus therapeutic exercises are common interventions for the management of forward head posture (FHP), no study has directly compared the effectiveness of cervical spine mobilization and stabilization exercise with that of thoracic spine mobilization and mobility exercise in individuals with FHP. Thirty-two participants with FHP were randomized into the cervical group or the thoracic group. The treatment period was 4 weeks, with follow-up assessment at 4 and 6 weeks after the initial examination. Outcome measures including the craniovertebral angle (CVA), cervical range of motion, numeric pain rating scale (NPRS), pressure pain threshold, neck disability index (NDI), and global rating of change (GRC) were collected. Data were examined with a two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (group × time). Participants in the thoracic group demonstrated significant improvements (p < .05) in CVA, cervical extension, NPRS, and NDI at the 6-week follow-up compared with those in the cervical group. In addition, 11 of 15 (68.8%) participants in the thoracic group compared with 8 of 16 participants (50%) in the cervical group showed a GRC score of +4 or higher at the 4-week follow-up. The combination of upper thoracic spine mobilization and mobility exercise demonstrated better overall short-term outcomes in CVA (standing position), cervical extension, NPRS, NDI, and GRC compared with upper cervical spine mobilization and stabilization exercise in individuals with FHP. KCT0002307 , April 11, 2017 (retrospectively registered).

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 415 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 415 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 66 16%
Student > Master 59 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 4%
Student > Postgraduate 16 4%
Other 58 14%
Unknown 174 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 120 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 53 13%
Sports and Recreations 24 6%
Neuroscience 6 1%
Physics and Astronomy 6 1%
Other 23 6%
Unknown 183 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 15 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,375,869
of 26,625,282 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#216
of 4,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,303
of 450,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#3
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,625,282 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,527 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 450,797 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 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 96% of its contemporaries.