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 |
Physiotherapy movement based classification approaches to low back pain: comparison of subgroups through review and developer/expert survey
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-13-24 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nicholas V Karayannis, Gwendolen A Jull, Paul W Hodges |
| Abstract |
Several classification schemes, each with its own philosophy and categorizing method, subgroup low back pain (LBP) patients with the intent to guide treatment. Physiotherapy derived schemes usually have a movement impairment focus, but the extent to which other biological, psychological, and social factors of pain are encompassed requires exploration. Furthermore, within the prevailing 'biological' domain, the overlap of subgrouping strategies within the orthopaedic examination remains unexplored. The aim of this study was "to review and clarify through developer/expert survey, the theoretical basis and content of physical movement classification schemes, determine their relative reliability and similarities/differences, and to consider the extent of incorporation of the bio-psycho-social framework within the schemes". |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 88 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 | 29 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 7 | 8% |
| Chile | 5 | 6% |
| United States | 4 | 5% |
| Mexico | 3 | 3% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Guatemala | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 32 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 77 | 88% |
| Scientists | 6 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 3% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 1 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 557 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Germany | 2 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | <1% |
| Unknown | 539 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 122 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 66 | 12% |
| Other | 64 | 11% |
| Researcher | 44 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 41 | 7% |
| Other | 132 | 24% |
| Unknown | 88 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 213 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 112 | 20% |
| Sports and Recreations | 35 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 20 | 4% |
| Psychology | 17 | 3% |
| Other | 50 | 9% |
| Unknown | 110 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 10 November 2022.
All research outputs
#672,139
of 24,792,414 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#82
of 4,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,050
of 160,973 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,792,414 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 4,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 160,973 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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 97% of its contemporaries.