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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Prevalence and pattern of co-occurring musculoskeletal pain and its association with back-related disability among people with persistent low back pain: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-017-0656-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cecilie K. Overaas, Melker S. Johansson, Tarcisio F. de Campos, Manuela L. Ferreira, Bard Natvig, Paul J. Mork, Jan Hartvigsen |
| Abstract |
Individuals with persistent low back pain commonly have a broad range of other health concerns including co-occurring musculoskeletal pain, which significantly affect their quality of life, symptom severity, and treatment outcomes. The purpose of this review is to get a better understanding of prevalence and patterns of co-occurring musculoskeletal pain complaints in those with persistent low back pain and its potential association with age, sex, and back-related disability as it might affect prognosis and management. This systematic review protocol has been designed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. We will perform a comprehensive search, with no date limit, in the following bibliographic databases: MEDLINE and Embase (via Ovid), CINAHL, and Scopus for citation tracking, based on the following domains: back pain, co-occurring musculoskeletal pain, combined with a focus group that emphasizes study design. Appropriate papers will be screened against the eligibility criteria by three reviewers independently, data extracted by two independent author pairs and disagreement resolved by consensus meetings or other reviewers if required. Assessment of methodological quality and risk of bias will be conducted using a modified version of the Risk of Bias Tool for Prevalence Studies developed by Hoy and colleagues. The overall risk of bias will be determined for each included study based on the raters' consensus of the responses to the items in this tool. In case of sufficiently homogenous studies, meta-analysis will be performed. Given the lack of standard terms used to define co-occurring musculoskeletal pain, the search strategy will include the broader term "back pain," different terms for the "other co-occurring pain," and specific study designs combined with several exclusion terms. The results of this proposed review will identify the prevalence and patterns of co-occurring musculoskeletal pain among those with persistent low back pain, which is likely to inform clinical management, research, and policy in management of musculoskeletal disorders. PROSPERO CRD42017068807. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 78 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 23% |
| Unknown | 21 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 19% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Unknown | 24 | 31% |
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 29 December 2017.
All research outputs
#17,923,510
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,712
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#307,876
of 440,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#53
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 440,140 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 61 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.