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 |
Reliability of diagnosis and clinical efficacy of visceral osteopathy: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12906-018-2098-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Albin Guillaud, Nelly Darbois, Richard Monvoisin, Nicolas Pinsault |
| Abstract |
In 2010, the World Health Organization published benchmarks for training in osteopathy in which osteopathic visceral techniques are included. The purpose of this study was to identify and critically appraise the scientific literature concerning the reliability of diagnosis and the clinical efficacy of techniques used in visceral osteopathy. Databases MEDLINE, OSTMED.DR, the Cochrane Library, Osteopathic Research Web, Google Scholar, Journal of American Osteopathic Association (JAOA) website, International Journal of Osteopathic Medicine (IJOM) website, and the catalog of Académie d'ostéopathie de France website were searched through December 2017. Only inter-rater reliability studies including at least two raters or the intra-rater reliability studies including at least two assessments by the same rater were included. For efficacy studies, only randomized-controlled-trials (RCT) or crossover studies on unhealthy subjects (any condition, duration and outcome) were included. Risk of bias was determined using a modified version of the quality appraisal tool for studies of diagnostic reliability (QAREL) in reliability studies. For the efficacy studies, the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess their methodological design. Two authors performed data extraction and analysis. Eight reliability studies and six efficacy studies were included. The analysis of reliability studies shows that the diagnostic techniques used in visceral osteopathy are unreliable. Regarding efficacy studies, the least biased study shows no significant difference for the main outcome. The main risks of bias found in the included studies were due to the absence of blinding of the examiners, an unsuitable statistical method or an absence of primary study outcome. The results of the systematic review lead us to conclude that well-conducted and sound evidence on the reliability and the efficacy of techniques in visceral osteopathy is absent. The review is registered PROSPERO 12th of December 2016. Registration number is CRD4201605286 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 111 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 11 | 10% |
| France | 10 | 9% |
| Canada | 8 | 7% |
| United States | 6 | 5% |
| Germany | 5 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 5% |
| Brazil | 3 | 3% |
| Ecuador | 3 | 3% |
| Australia | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 48 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 95 | 86% |
| Scientists | 9 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 4% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 296 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 296 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 58 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 38 | 13% |
| Researcher | 19 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 16 | 5% |
| Other | 54 | 18% |
| Unknown | 94 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 74 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 71 | 24% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Psychology | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 6% |
| Unknown | 113 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 109. 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 21 April 2024.
All research outputs
#394,995
of 25,758,695 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#64
of 3,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,925
of 345,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#3
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,758,695 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,990 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 345,177 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 97% 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 97% of its contemporaries.