↓ Skip to main content

Physiotherapy practice in line with evidence?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
211 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
Physiotherapy practice in line with evidence?
Published in
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, May 2015
DOI 10.1111/jep.12380
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne Bernhardsson, Birgitta Öberg, Kajsa Johansson, Per Nilsen, Maria E H Larsson

Abstract

Evidence-based practice is becoming increasingly important in primary care physiotherapy. Clinical practice needs to reflect current best evidence and be concordant with evidence-based clinical guidelines. There is limited knowledge about therapeutic interventions used in primary care physiotherapy in Sweden. The objectives were to examine preferred treatment interventions reported by publicly employed physiotherapists in primary care for three common musculoskeletal disorders (low back pain, neck pain and subacromial pain), the extent to which these interventions were supported by evidence, and associations with demographic variables. 419 physiotherapists in primary care in western Sweden were surveyed using a validated web-based questionnaire. The survey was completed by 271 respondents (65%). Median number of interventions reported was 7 (range 1-16). The most common treatment interventions across the three conditions were advice on posture (reported by 82-94%), advice to stay active (86-92%), and different types of exercise (65-92%). Most of these interventions were supported by evidence. However, interventions with insufficient evidence, such as advice on posture, TENS and aquatic exercise, were also used by 29-96%. Modalities such as laser therapy and ultrasound were sparingly used (<5%), which is in line with evidence. For neck pain, use of evidence-based interventions was associated with gender and for subacromial pain, with work experience. Advice and exercise therapy were the interventions most frequently reported across the three diagnoses, illustrating an active treatment strategy. While most reported interventions are supported by evidence, interventions with unclear or no evidence of effect were also used to a high extent.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 211 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Unknown 209 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 17%
Student > Bachelor 29 14%
Researcher 13 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 6%
Other 12 6%
Other 43 20%
Unknown 65 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 51 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 51 24%
Sports and Recreations 10 5%
Neuroscience 7 3%
Psychology 6 3%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 71 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 16 June 2015.
All research outputs
#13,872,459
of 24,542,484 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#847
of 1,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,788
of 270,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#22
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,542,484 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.0. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 270,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.