↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of Kinesiology Taping for Recovery from Occupational Wrist Disorders Experienced by a Physical Therapist

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Physical Therapy Science, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Efficacy of Kinesiology Taping for Recovery from Occupational Wrist Disorders Experienced by a Physical Therapist
Published in
Journal of Physical Therapy Science, June 2014
DOI 10.1589/jpts.26.941
Pubmed ID
Authors

Byeong-Jo Kim, Jung-Hoon Lee

Abstract

[Purpose] The aim of this paper was to report the efficacy of kinesiology taping for recovery from wrist pain and limited range of motion (ROM) in a physical therapist with repetitive strain injuries. [Subjects] A 32 year-old male physical therapist developed recurring severe pain in the dominant wrist and limited active ROM with extremely painful supination. [Methods] The kinesiology tape was applied to the lumbricals, musculi interossei dorsales, palmares, the wrist extensor and flexor muscles, and the wrist joint for 3 weeks for an average of 10 h/day. [Results] After application of the kinesiology tape, the Numeric Pain Rating Scale and Patient-rated Wrist Evaluation scores decreased, and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale score increased in comparison with the initial score. [Conclusion] Repeated kinesiology taping of the wrist muscles and joint could be an effective method for recovery from occupational wrist disorders experienced by physical therapists.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 27%
Student > Bachelor 12 24%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 2 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 16%
Sports and Recreations 7 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 14 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 October 2014.
All research outputs
#15,169,543
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Physical Therapy Science
#758
of 1,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,587
of 241,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Physical Therapy Science
#30
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,731 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 241,932 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.