↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2011
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 122 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 16%
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Master 19 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 18 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Sports and Recreations 6 5%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 24 18%

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
#1,655,608
of 12,373,620 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#366
of 2,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,886
of 118,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,620 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 118,740 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 95% of its contemporaries.