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 |
How large are the nonspecific effects of acupuncture? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, November 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-8-75 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Klaus Linde, Karin Niemann, Antonius Schneider, Karin Meissner |
| Abstract |
While several recent large randomized trials found clinically relevant effects of acupuncture over no treatment or routine care, blinded trials comparing acupuncture to sham interventions often reported only minor or no differences. This raises the question whether (sham) acupuncture is associated with particularly potent nonspecific effects. We aimed to investigate the size of nonspecific effects associated with acupuncture interventions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 151 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 42 | 26% |
| Researcher | 27 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 15% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 25 | 16% |
| Unknown | 19 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 94 | 59% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 9% |
| Unknown | 22 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 11 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,513,993
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,072
of 4,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,371
of 189,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 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 4,059 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 189,048 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.