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 |
Prevention of exertional lower body musculoskeletal injury in tactical populations: protocol for a systematic review and planned meta-analysis of prospective studies from 1955 to 2018
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-018-0730-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shawn D. Flanagan, Aaron M. Sinnott, Kellen T. Krajewski, Caleb D. Johnson, Shawn R. Eagle, Alice D. LaGoy, Meaghan E. Beckner, Anne Z. Beethe, Rose Turner, Mita Lovalekar, Courtenay Dunn-Lewis, Chris Connaboy, Bradley C. Nindl |
| Abstract |
Exertional lower body musculoskeletal injuries (ELBI) cost billions of dollars and compromise the readiness and job performance of military service and public safety workers (i.e., tactical populations). The prevalence and burden of such injuries underscores the importance of prevention efforts during activities necessary to sustain core occupational competencies. Attempts to synthesize prevention techniques specific to tactical populations have provided limited insight on the comparative efficacy of interventions that do not modify physical training practices. There is also a need to assess the influence of sex, exposure, injury classification scheme, and study design. Thus, the primary purpose of the systematic review and planned meta-analysis detailed in this protocol is to evaluate the comparative efficacy of ELBI prevention strategies in tactical populations. A systematic search strategy will be implemented in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL. A multi-tiered process will be used to capture randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that directly assess the prevention of ELBI in tactical population(s). Extracted data will be used to compare prevention strategies and assess the influence of heterogeneity related to occupation, sex, exposure, injury characteristics, and study quality. In addition, individual risk of bias, meta-bias, and the quality of the body of evidence will be rigorously tested. This systematic review and planned meta-analysis will comprehensively evaluate ELBI mitigation strategies in tactical populations, elucidate factors that influence responses to treatment, and assess the overall quality of the body of research. Results of this work will guide the prioritization of ELBI prevention strategies and direct future research efforts, with direct relevance to tactical, health and rehabilitation science, and human performance optimization stakeholders. The systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 3 Jan 2018 (registration number CRD42018081799 ). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 42% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 17% |
| Ireland | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 58% |
| Scientists | 4 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 94 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 43 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 17% |
| Sports and Recreations | 12 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 44 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 12 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,452,309
of 25,653,515 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#403
of 2,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,207
of 341,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#9
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,653,515 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 341,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.