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 |
Efficacy of graded activity versus supervised exercises in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain: protocol of a randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-14-36 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mauricio Oliveira Magalhaes, Fábio Jorge Renovato França, Thomaz Nogueira Burke, Luiz Armando Vidal Ramos, Ana Paula de Moura Campos Carvalho e Silva, Gabriel Peixoto Leao Almeida, Susan Lee King Yuan, Amélia Pasqual Marques |
| Abstract |
Low back pain is a relevant public health problem, being an important cause of work absenteeism worldwide, as well as affecting the quality of life of sufferers and their individual functional performances. Supervised active physical routines and of cognitive-behavioral therapies are recommended for the treatment of chronic Low back pain, although evidence to support the effectiveness of different techniques is missing. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to contrast the effectiveness of two types of exercises, graded activity or supervised, in decreasing symptoms of chronic low back pain. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 280 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 277 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 54 | 19% |
| Student > Master | 39 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 8% |
| Researcher | 20 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 5% |
| Other | 59 | 21% |
| Unknown | 70 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 74 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 55 | 20% |
| Sports and Recreations | 22 | 8% |
| Psychology | 10 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 29 | 10% |
| Unknown | 80 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 January 2016.
All research outputs
#6,397,452
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,121
of 4,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,315
of 288,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#20
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,431 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 288,187 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.