↓ Skip to main content

Reliability and group differences in quantitative cervicothoracic measures among individuals with and without chronic neck pain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
202 Mendeley
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.
Title
Reliability and group differences in quantitative cervicothoracic measures among individuals with and without chronic neck pain
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-13-215
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bahar Shahidi, Cynthia L Johnson, Douglas Curran-Everett, Katrina S Maluf

Abstract

Clinicians frequently rely on subjective categorization of impairments in mobility, strength, and endurance for clinical decision-making; however, these assessments are often unreliable and lack sensitivity to change. The objective of this study was to determine the inter-rater reliability, minimum detectable change (MDC), and group differences in quantitative cervicothoracic measures for individuals with and without chronic neck pain (NP).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 198 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 23%
Student > Bachelor 28 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 12%
Researcher 16 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 40 20%
Unknown 35 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 39 19%
Sports and Recreations 15 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Psychology 3 1%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 48 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 June 2013.
All research outputs
#12,803,524
of 22,684,168 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,714
of 4,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,254
of 184,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#32
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,684,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,028 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 184,188 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 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 56% of its contemporaries.