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 |
Taking responsibility for the early assessment and treatment of patients with musculoskeletal pain: a review and critical analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Arthritis Research & Therapy, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/ar3743 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nadine E Foster, Jan Hartvigsen, Peter R Croft |
| Abstract |
Musculoskeletal pain is common across all populations and costly in terms of impact on the individual and, more generally, on society. In most health-care systems, the first person to see the patient with a musculoskeletal problem such as back pain is the general practitioner, and access to other professionals such as physiotherapists, chiropractors, or osteopaths is still either largely controlled by a traditional medical model of referral or left to self-referral by the patient. In this paper, we examine the arguments for the general practitioner-led model and consider the arguments, and underpinning evidence, for reconsidering who should take responsibility for the early assessment and treatment of patients with musculoskeletal problems. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 | 20% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| France | 1 | 10% |
| Germany | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 40% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 147 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 13% |
| Other | 16 | 11% |
| Researcher | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 32 | 21% |
| Unknown | 33 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 50 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 33 | 22% |
| Sports and Recreations | 6 | 4% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Unknown | 41 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 March 2017.
All research outputs
#4,228,347
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#947
of 3,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,015
of 167,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arthritis Research & Therapy
#4
of 61 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 167,986 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 84% of its contemporaries.
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 has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.