↓ Skip to main content

Kinematic real-time feedback is more effective than traditional teaching method in learning ankle joint mobilisation: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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
Kinematic real-time feedback is more effective than traditional teaching method in learning ankle joint mobilisation: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medical Education, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0789-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Manuel González-Sánchez, Maria Ruiz-Muñoz, Ana Belén Ávila-Bolívar, Antonio I. Cuesta-Vargas

Abstract

To analyse the effect of real-time kinematic feedback (KRTF) when learning two ankle joint mobilisation techniques comparing the results with the traditional teaching method. Double-blind randomized trial. Faculty of Health Sciences. undergraduate students with no experience in manual therapy. Each student practised intensely for 90 min (45 min for each mobilisation) according to the random methodology assigned (G1: traditional method group and G2: KRTF group). G1: an expert professor supervising the student's practice, the professorstudent ratio was 1:8. G2: placed in front of a station where, while they performed the manoeuvre, they received a KRTF on a laptop. total time of mobilisation, time to reach maximum amplitude, maximum angular displacement in the three axes, maximum and average velocity to reach the maximum angular displacement, average velocity during the mobilisation. Among the pre-post intervention measurements, there were significant differences within the two groups for all outcome variables, however, G2 (KRTF) achieved significantly greater improvements in kinematic parameters for the two mobilisations (significant increase in displacement, velocity and significant reduction in the mobilisations runtime) than G1. Ankle plantar flexion: G1's measurement stability (post-intervention) ranged between 0.491 and 0.687, while G2's measurement stability ranged between 0.899 and 0.984. Ankle dorsal flexion mobilisation: G1 the measurement stability (post-intervention) ranged from 0.543 and 0.684 while G2 ranged between 0.899 and 0.974. KRTF was proven to be more effective tool than traditional teaching method in the teaching - learning process of two joint mobilisation techniques. NCT02504710.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 29 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 26 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 19%
Psychology 7 7%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 30 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 October 2021.
All research outputs
#4,525,367
of 22,890,496 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#750
of 3,338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,379
of 319,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#12
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,890,496 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 319,894 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 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.