↓ Skip to main content

Dry-needling and exercise for chronic whiplash-associated disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Pain (03043959), April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
107 X users
facebook
21 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
230 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
Dry-needling and exercise for chronic whiplash-associated disorders
Published in
Pain (03043959), April 2015
DOI 10.1097/01.j.pain.0000460359.40116.c1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michele Sterling, Bill Vicenzino, Tina Souvlis, Luke B. Connelly

Abstract

This randomized controlled trial investigated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dry-needling and exercise compared with sham dry-needling and exercise for chronic whiplash-associated disorders (WAD). The setting was a single university centre and 4 physiotherapy practices in Queensland, Australia. Eighty patients with chronic WAD (>3 months) were enrolled between June 2009 and August 2012 with 1-year follow-up completed in August 2013. The interventions were 6 weeks of dry-needling to posterior neck muscles (n = 40) and exercise or sham dry-needling and exercise (n = 40). The primary outcomes of the Neck Disability Index (NDI) and self-rated recovery were measured at baseline, 6 and 12 weeks, 6 and 12 months by a blinded assessor. Analysis was intention to treat. An economic evaluation was planned but missing data deemed further analysis unwarranted. Seventy-nine patients (99%) were followed up at 6 weeks, 78 (98%) at 12 weeks, 74 (93%) at 6 months, and 73 (91%) at 12 months. The dry-needling and exercise intervention was more effective than sham dry-needling and exercise in reducing disability at 6 and 12 months but not at 6 and 12 weeks. The treatment effects were small and not clinically worthwhile. At 6 weeks, the treatment effect on the 0-100 NDI was -0.3 (95% confidence interval -5.4 to 4.7), 12 weeks -0.3 (-5.2 to 4.9), 6 months -4.4 (-9.6 to -0.74), and 12 months -3.8 (-9.1 to -0.5). There was no effect for self-rated recovery. In patients with chronic WAD, dry-needling and exercise has no clinically worthwhile effects over sham dry-needling and exercise.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 107 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 230 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 222 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 15%
Student > Master 32 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 31 13%
Researcher 20 9%
Student > Postgraduate 15 7%
Other 50 22%
Unknown 48 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 63 27%
Sports and Recreations 13 6%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Psychology 3 1%
Other 14 6%
Unknown 56 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 72. 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 13 December 2020.
All research outputs
#591,030
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Pain (03043959)
#253
of 6,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,084
of 279,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pain (03043959)
#4
of 82 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 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,470 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 279,170 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.