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 |
Analysis of outcome measures for persons with patellofemoral pain: which are reliable and valid?11No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit upon the author(s) or upon any organization with which the author(s) is/are associated.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, May 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1016/s0003-9993(03)00613-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kay M Crossley, Kim L Bennell, Sallie M Cowan, Sally Green |
| Abstract |
To examine the test-retest reliability, validity, and responsiveness of several outcome measures in the treatment of patellofemoral pain. Evaluation of the clinimetric properties of individual outcome measures for patellofemoral pain treatment, using data collected from a previously published randomized controlled trial (RCT). General community and private practice. The data from 71 persons enrolled in an RCT of a conservative intervention for patellofemoral pain were used to evaluate the measures' validity and responsiveness. A subset of this cohort (n=20) was used to assess reliability. Not applicable. Three 10-cm visual analog scales (VASs) for usual pain (VAS-U), worst pain (VAS-W), and pain on 6 aggravating activities (walking, running, squatting, sitting, ascending and descending stairs) (VAS-activity); the Functional Index Questionnaire (FIQ); the Anterior Knee Pain Scale (AKPS); and the global rating of change. The test-retest reliability ranged from poor (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]=.49) to good (ICC=.83), and the measures correlated moderately with each other (r range,.56-.72). Median change scores differed significantly between improved and unimproved persons for all measures. The effect sizes for VAS-U (.79), VAS-W (.88), and the AKPS (.98) were large, indicating greater responsiveness than the FIQ (.37) and VAS-activity (.66). Similarly, the AKPS and VAS-W were the most efficient measures for detecting a treatment effect when compared with a reference measure (VAS-U, which was assigned a value of 1). The minimal difference that patients or clinicians consider clinically important for the AKPS is 10 (out of 100) points and for the VAS it is 2cm (out of 10cm). The AKPS and VAS for usual or worst pain are reliable, valid, and responsive and are therefore recommended for future clinical trials or clinical practice in assessing treatment outcome in persons with patellofemoral pain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 529 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 524 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 84 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 70 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 54 | 10% |
| Researcher | 48 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 41 | 8% |
| Other | 91 | 17% |
| Unknown | 141 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 174 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 88 | 17% |
| Sports and Recreations | 44 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 2% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 2% |
| Other | 32 | 6% |
| Unknown | 168 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 15 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,659,159
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
#1,391
of 6,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,632
of 62,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
#7
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. 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 62,285 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.