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 |
Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Sports Medicine, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2165/00007256-200232130-00004 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Bryan Chung, J. Preston Wiley |
| Abstract |
Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWT) has been in use for the treatment of tendinopathies since the early 1990s. The exact mechanism by which ESWT relieves tendon-associated pain is not known; however, there is an increasing body of literature that suggests that it can be an effective therapy for patients who have had repeated nonsurgical treatment failures. The highest strength of evidence is shown in randomised controlled trials, of which there are a small number. Reported results for tendinopathies of the shoulder, elbow and heel have shown consistent positive results in favour of ESWT over placebo ESWT in individuals who have failed conservative therapy. These studies provide strong evidence for ESWT as an effective therapy for the treatment of chronic treatment-resistant tendinopathies. There is still much debate over several issues surrounding ESWT that have not been adequately addressed by the literature: high- versus low-energy ESWT, shockwave dosage and number of sessions required for a therapeutic effect. Further research is needed to ascertain the most beneficial protocol for patient care. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 159 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 13% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Researcher | 11 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 14% |
| Unknown | 42 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 18% |
| Sports and Recreations | 18 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 4% |
| Engineering | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Unknown | 48 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 08 January 2021.
All research outputs
#7,355,485
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Sports Medicine
#2,155
of 2,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,732
of 202,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sports Medicine
#542
of 979 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 56.8. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 202,127 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 979 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.