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 |
Specific treatment of problems of the spine (STOPS): design of a randomised controlled trial comparing specific physiotherapy versus advice for people with subacute low back disorders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-12-104 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrew J Hahne, Jon J Ford, Luke D Surkitt, Matthew C Richards, Alexander YP Chan, Sarah L Thompson, Rana S Hinman, Nicholas F Taylor |
| Abstract |
Low back disorders are a common and costly cause of pain and activity limitation in adults. Few treatment options have demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits apart from advice which is recommended in all international guidelines. Clinical heterogeneity of participants in clinical trials is hypothesised as reducing the likelihood of demonstrating treatment effects, and sampling of more homogenous subgroups is recommended. We propose five subgroups that allow the delivery of specific physiotherapy treatment targeting the pathoanatomical, neurophysiological and psychosocial components of low back disorders. The aim of this article is to describe the methodology of a randomised controlled trial comparing specific physiotherapy treatment to advice for people classified into five subacute low back disorder subgroups. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 30% |
| Chile | 1 | 10% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 2% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 159 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 14% |
| Researcher | 22 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 7% |
| Other | 34 | 20% |
| Unknown | 35 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 28 | 17% |
| Sports and Recreations | 8 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 22 | 13% |
| Unknown | 42 | 25% |
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 22 March 2017.
All research outputs
#3,793,476
of 23,668,780 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#733
of 4,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,205
of 113,337 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#7
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,668,780 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 4,164 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. 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 113,337 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.