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 |
Evidence-based guidelines for physiotherapy management of patients with multiple myeloma: study protocol
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-018-0785-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Deepa Jeevanantham, Venkadesan Rajendran, Line Tremblay, Céline Larivière, Andrew Knight |
| Abstract |
Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) are often treated with chemotherapy, radiation, and, if indicated, autologous stem cell transplant. In addition to side effects of the treatment, patients with MM often have bone pain, pathological fractures, spinal cord compressions, fatigue, and muscle weakness, which negatively impact functional performance and quality of life. Currently, there are no related guidelines for safe and effective physiotherapy (PT) management. Accordingly, the aim of the present study is to develop guidelines for effective physiotherapy management of patients with MM by systematically reviewing and evaluating the available evidence followed by a consensus process to specifically describe the research questions as detailed below. Physiotherapy management guidelines for patients with multiple myeloma will be developed based on the results of a systematic search of the following databases: US National Library of Medicine Database (PubMed), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Elton B. Stephens Co. (EBSCO), Web of Science, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). All articles will be screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria. Relevant potential articles will be identified and systematically reviewed for final phase of inclusion. Two independent reviewers will systematically review and analyze the quality of identified articles using standardized assessment tools. Scientific conclusions will be drawn and recommendations will be made based on a critical appraisal process. The guideline development will also be based on the team's judgment about the overall quality of the studies and a consensus process. Draft guidelines will be developed in the form of action statements based on the strength of evidence and grades of recommendations. The draft guidelines will be reviewed internally by two independent reviewers using AGREE II and externally by a methodological expert from Evidence-Based Care - Cancer Care Ontario and will be sent to the Canadian Physiotherapy Association (CPA) for feedback from physiotherapists. PROSPERO CRD42017064056. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 | 2 | 18% |
| United Arab Emirates | 1 | 9% |
| Australia | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 7 | 64% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 82% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 124 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 15% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Researcher | 13 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 11% |
| Unknown | 47 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 27 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 19% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 10% |
| Unknown | 50 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 September 2019.
All research outputs
#4,194,639
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#871
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,166
of 301,794 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#35
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 301,794 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.