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 |
A mixed methods study to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a self-managed exercise programme versus usual physiotherapy for chronic rotator cuff disorders: protocol for the SELF study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-13-62 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chris Littlewood, Jon Ashton, Sue Mawson, Stephen May, Stephen Walters |
| Abstract |
Shoulder pain is the third most common reason for consultation with a physiotherapist and up to 26% of the general population might be expected to experience an episode at any one time. Disorders of the shoulder muscles and tendons (rotator cuff) are thought to be the commonest cause of this pain. The long-term outcome is frequently poor despite treatment. This means that many patients are exposed to more invasive treatment, e.g. surgery, and/or long-term pain and disability.Patients with this disorder typically receive a course of physiotherapy which might include a range of treatments. Specifically the value of exercise against gravity or resistance (loaded exercise) in the treatment of tendon disorders is promising but appears to be under-used. Loaded exercise in other areas of the body has been favourably evaluated but further investigation is needed to evaluate the impact of these exercises in the shoulder and particularly the role of home based or supervised exercise versus usual treatment requiring clinic attendance. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 4 | 80% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 270 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Greece | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 264 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 49 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 13% |
| Researcher | 22 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 19 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 7% |
| Other | 62 | 23% |
| Unknown | 64 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 83 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 59 | 22% |
| Psychology | 8 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 29 | 11% |
| Unknown | 77 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 March 2015.
All research outputs
#7,690,174
of 23,394,907 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,561
of 4,130 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,744
of 164,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#20
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,394,907 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,130 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 164,056 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.