↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of movement control exercises versus general exercises on recurrent sub-acute nonspecific low back pain in a sub-group of patients with movement control dysfunction. protocol of a randomized…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
225 Mendeley
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.
Title
Efficacy of movement control exercises versus general exercises on recurrent sub-acute nonspecific low back pain in a sub-group of patients with movement control dysfunction. protocol of a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-13-55
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vesa Lehtola, Hannu Luomajoki, Ville Leinonen, Sean Gibbons, Olavi Airaksinen

Abstract

Practice guidelines recommend various types of exercise for chronic back pain but there have been few head-to-head comparisons of these interventions. General exercise seems to be an effective option for management of chronic low back pain (LBP) but very little is known about the management of a sub-acute LBP within sub-groups. Recent research has developed clinical tests to identify a subgroup of patients with chronic non-specific LBP who have movement control dysfunction (MD).

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 223 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 16%
Student > Bachelor 34 15%
Researcher 19 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 6%
Other 57 25%
Unknown 45 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 81 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 17%
Sports and Recreations 17 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 6%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 52 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 05 August 2023.
All research outputs
#4,540,903
of 24,213,825 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#891
of 4,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,957
of 165,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#4
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,213,825 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,258 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 165,050 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.