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 |
Global Postural Reeducation for patients with musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0153 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Giovanni E. Ferreira, Rodrigo G. P. Barreto, Caroline C. Robinson, Rodrigo D. M. Plentz, Marcelo F. Silva |
| Abstract |
Objectives To systematically review randomized controlled trials that assessed the effects of Global Postural Reeducation (GPR) on patient-reported outcomes in conditions of the musculoskeletal system. Method An electronic search of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and SciELO was performed from their inception to June 2015. Randomized controlled trials that analyzed pain and patient-reported outcomes were included in this review. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool was used to evaluate risk of bias, and the quality of evidence was rated following the GRADE approach. There were no language restrictions. Results Eleven trials were included totaling 383 patients. Overall, the trials had high risk of bias. GPR was superior to no treatment but not to other forms of treatment for pain and disability. No placebo-controlled trials were found. Conclusion GPR is not superior to other treatments; however, it is superior to no treatment. Due to the lack of studies, it is unknown if GPR is better than placebo. The quality of the available evidence ranges from low to very low, therefore future studies may change the effect estimates of GPR in musculoskeletal conditions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 States | 1 | 25% |
| Austria | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 200 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 200 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 53 | 27% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 7% |
| Professor | 10 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 28 | 14% |
| Unknown | 61 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 60 | 30% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 24% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 16 | 8% |
| Unknown | 62 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 04 January 2023.
All research outputs
#13,857,542
of 23,485,296 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
#331
of 679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,962
of 341,051 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,485,296 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 679 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. 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 341,051 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.