Title |
Image‐guided versus blind glucocorticoid injection for shoulder pain
|
---|---|
Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
|
DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009147.pub2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Jason E Bloom<sup>a</sup>, Adam Rischin<sup>a</sup>, Renea V Johnston, Rachelle Buchbinder |
Abstract |
Traditionally, glucocorticoid injection for the treatment of shoulder pain has been performed guided by anatomical landmarks alone. With the advent of readily available imaging tools such as ultrasound, image-guided injections have increasingly become accepted into routine care. While there is some evidence that the use of imaging improves accuracy, it is unclear from current evidence whether or not it improves patient-relevant outcomes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 11 | 42% |
Germany | 2 | 8% |
United States | 2 | 8% |
Canada | 1 | 4% |
Australia | 1 | 4% |
Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
Unknown | 7 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 17 | 65% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 19% |
Scientists | 2 | 8% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 3 | 1% |
Switzerland | 2 | <1% |
Canada | 1 | <1% |
Unknown | 251 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 48 | 19% |
Researcher | 34 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 29 | 11% |
Other | 24 | 9% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 7% |
Other | 52 | 20% |
Unknown | 51 | 20% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 128 | 50% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 38 | 15% |
Psychology | 8 | 3% |
Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
Sports and Recreations | 4 | 2% |
Other | 16 | 6% |
Unknown | 59 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 March 2024.
All research outputs
#2,041,849
of 25,593,129 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,356
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,833
of 186,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#68
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,593,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 186,440 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 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 68% of its contemporaries.