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 |
The relationship between the piriformis muscle, low back pain, lower limb injuries and motor control training among elite football players
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jsams.2014.06.011 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Felix T. Leung, M. Dilani Mendis, Warren R. Stanton, Julie A. Hides |
| Abstract |
Australian Football League (AFL) players have a high incidence of back injuries. Motor control training to increase lumbopelvic neuromuscular control has been effective in reducing low back pain (LBP) and lower limb injuries in elite athletes. Control of pelvic and femoral alignment during functional activity involves the piriformis muscle. This study investigated (a) the effect of motor control training on piriformis muscle size in AFL players, with and without LBP, during the playing season, and (b) whether there is a relationship between lower limb injury and piriformis muscle size. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 15% |
| Italy | 2 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
| Australia | 2 | 10% |
| Mexico | 1 | 5% |
| Cyprus | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Belgium | 1 | 5% |
| Malta | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 85% |
| Scientists | 2 | 10% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 292 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 290 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 46 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 40 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 11% |
| Researcher | 19 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 43 | 15% |
| Unknown | 95 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 57 | 20% |
| Sports and Recreations | 50 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 45 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 2% |
| Arts and Humanities | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 7% |
| Unknown | 111 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 01 March 2016.
All research outputs
#2,465,807
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
#679
of 2,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,094
of 242,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
#19
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,874 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 242,574 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 59% of its contemporaries.