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 |
Focused Evidence Review: Psychometric Properties of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of General Internal Medicine, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11606-018-4327-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth S. Goldsmith, Brent C. Taylor, Nancy Greer, Maureen Murdoch, Roderick MacDonald, Lauren McKenzie, Christina E. Rosebush, Timothy J. Wilt |
| Abstract |
Developing successful interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain requires valid, responsive, and reliable outcome measures. The Minneapolis VA Evidence-based Synthesis Program completed a focused evidence review on key psychometric properties of 17 self-report measures of pain severity and pain-related functional impairment suitable for clinical research on chronic musculoskeletal pain. Pain experts of the VA Pain Measurement Outcomes Workgroup identified 17 pain measures to undergo systematic review. In addition to a MEDLINE search on these 17 measures (1/2000-1/2017), we hand-searched (without publication date limits) the reference lists of all included studies, prior systematic reviews, and-when available-Web sites dedicated to each measure (PROSPERO registration CRD42017056610). Our primary outcome was the measure's minimal important difference (MID). Secondary outcomes included responsiveness, validity, and test-retest reliability. Outcomes were synthesized through evidence mapping and qualitative comparison. Of 1635 abstracts identified, 331 articles underwent full-text review, and 43 met inclusion criteria. Five measures (Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), SF-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS)) had data reported on MID, responsiveness, validity, and test-retest reliability. Seven measures had data reported on three of the four psychometric outcomes. Eight measures had reported MIDs, though estimation methods differed substantially and often were not clinically anchored. In this focused evidence review, the most evidence on key psychometric properties in chronic musculoskeletal pain populations was found for the ODI, RMDQ, SF-36 BPS, NRS, and VAS. Key limitations in the field include substantial variation in methods of estimating psychometric properties, defining chronic musculoskeletal pain, and reporting patient demographics. Registered in the PROSPERO database: CRD42017056610. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 | 2 | 25% |
| Italy | 1 | 13% |
| Ireland | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 38% |
| Scientists | 2 | 25% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 96 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 96 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 19 | 20% |
| Unknown | 31 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 19% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 34 | 35% |
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 20 October 2018.
All research outputs
#7,235,153
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#3,911
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,140
of 332,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#69
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 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 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 332,610 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.