↓ Skip to main content

Meta-narrative analysis of sports injury reporting practices based on the Injury Definitions Concept Framework (IDCF): A review of consensus statements and epidemiological studies in athletics (track…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
126 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
Meta-narrative analysis of sports injury reporting practices based on the Injury Definitions Concept Framework (IDCF): A review of consensus statements and epidemiological studies in athletics (track and field)
Published in
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, December 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.jsams.2014.11.393
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toomas Timpka, Jenny Jacobsson, Joakim Ekberg, Caroline F. Finch, Jerome Bichenbach, Pascal Edouard, Victor Bargoria, Pedro Branco, Juan Manuel Alonso

Abstract

Consistency in routines for reporting injury has been a focus of development efforts in sports epidemiology for a long time. To gain an improved understanding of current reporting practices, we applied the Injury Definitions Concept Framework (IDCF) in a review of injury reporting in a subset of the field.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Kenya 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Qatar 1 <1%
Unknown 121 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 17%
Student > Master 22 17%
Other 12 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 6%
Researcher 6 5%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 32 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Sports and Recreations 34 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 26 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 13%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 32 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 17 October 2015.
All research outputs
#5,187,758
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
#1,119
of 2,874 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,289
of 367,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
#10
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 367,041 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 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 70% of its contemporaries.