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 |
Comparison of Radial Shockwaves and Conventional Physiotherapy for Treating Plantar Fasciitis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinics, February 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1590/s1807-59322009000200006 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Júlia Maria D’Andréa Greve, Marcus Vinicius Grecco, Paulo Roberto Santos-Silva |
| Abstract |
To compare radial shockwave treatment and conventional physiotherapy for plantar fasciitis. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Greece | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 218 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 52 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 41 | 18% |
| Researcher | 19 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 42 | 19% |
| Unknown | 40 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 92 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 43 | 19% |
| Sports and Recreations | 12 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 2% |
| Engineering | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 20 | 9% |
| Unknown | 49 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 11 June 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#667
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,541
of 186,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#16
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 186,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.