| Title |
A pragmatic community-based intervention of multimodal physiotherapy plus deep water running (DWR) for fibromyalgia syndrome: a pilot study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Rheumatology, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10067-011-1825-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Antonio I. Cuesta-Vargas, Nicola Adams |
| Abstract |
Evidence-based recommendations support the use of multimodal therapy and hydrotherapy for fibromyalgia syndrome; however, there is little standardisation of such programmes. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of a pool-based exercise using deep water running (DWR) as part of a multimodal physiotherapy programme for patients with fibromyalgia syndrome. For a non-randomised clinical study, 44 patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia were recruited from primary care. Patients in the experimental group received a multimodal programme incorporating pool-based exercise using DWR three times a week for an 8-week period. The control group received a leaflet containing advice and continued with normal activities. Patients were evaluated for physical function (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire, FIQ), pain, general health (Short Form-12 Health Survey) and quality of life (European Quality of Life Scale-5D) pre- and post intervention. Statistically significant results were found for the experimental group for FIQ total score, incorporating physical function, pain, fatigue, stiffness and psychological variables (p < 0.05). Statistically significant differences between the experimental group and control were also found for general health (p < 0.05) and quality of life (p < 0.05). The results of this pilot study and the high level of compliance and adherence and low level of attrition suggest that this multimodal programme incorporating DWR is a safe and effective intervention for fibromyalgia syndrome that is acceptable to patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 1% |
| Iran, Islamic Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 187 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 25 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 7% |
| Other | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 32 | 17% |
| Unknown | 59 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 36 | 19% |
| Sports and Recreations | 13 | 7% |
| Psychology | 7 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 6% |
| Unknown | 68 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 April 2015.
All research outputs
#14,136,253
of 22,651,245 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Rheumatology
#1,778
of 2,977 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,139
of 123,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Rheumatology
#10
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,651,245 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,977 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 123,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.