↓ Skip to main content

Spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000447.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Willem JJ Assendelft, Sally C Morton, Emily I Yu, Marika J Suttorp, Paul G Shekelle

Abstract

Low-back pain is a costly illness for which spinal manipulative therapy is commonly recommended. Previous systematic reviews and practice guidelines have reached discordant results on the effectiveness of this therapy for low-back pain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Chile 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Australia 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 176 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 18%
Researcher 21 11%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Other 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 8%
Other 57 30%
Unknown 23 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 99 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Neuroscience 6 3%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 30 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 29 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,100,351
of 15,010,583 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,128
of 11,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,858
of 151,588 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#18
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,010,583 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,075 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 151,588 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 82% of its contemporaries.