| Title |
The effectiveness of balneotherapy in chronic low back pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-014-2545-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Şule Şahin Onat, Özlem Taşoğlu, Fulya Demircioğlu Güneri, Zuhal Özişler, Vildan Binay Safer, Neşe Özgirgin |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of balneotherapy plus physical therapy versus only physical therapy in patients with chronic low back pain. In this trial, 81 patients with low back pain were followed up in two groups. Patients in group I (n = 44) were treated with physical therapy alone. Patients in group II (n = 37) were treated with balneotherapy in addition to the same physical therapy protocol in group I. Patients in both groups were given a home-based standardized exercise program. The following parameters were measured: visual analog scale (0-10 cm), fingertip-to-floor distance (cm), Oswestry Disability Index, and Short Form 36 quality of life scale. First evaluations were done at the time of enrollment, and second evaluations were done after accomplishment of a 3-week treatment program. There were no significant differences between the two groups for the sociodemographic features. All of the measured parameters improved in both groups. However, improvements in pain, functionality, and quality of life scores were found to be superior in the balneotherapy plus physical therapy group. For the patients with chronic low back pain, balneotherapy plus physical therapy is more effective, compared to physical therapy alone. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 85 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Researcher | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 17% |
| Unknown | 27 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 22% |
| Sports and Recreations | 9 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 6% |
| Unknown | 29 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 November 2016.
All research outputs
#6,271,351
of 22,753,345 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#940
of 2,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,865
of 221,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#13
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,753,345 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 221,377 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 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.