↓ 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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
233 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 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 3 1%
United States 3 1%
Australia 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 219 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 16%
Student > Bachelor 30 13%
Other 22 9%
Researcher 22 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 8%
Other 64 27%
Unknown 39 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 103 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 15%
Neuroscience 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 3%
Sports and Recreations 8 3%
Other 22 9%
Unknown 47 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 03 January 2022.
All research outputs
#1,404,672
of 20,639,027 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,383
of 12,097 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,407
of 169,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,639,027 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,097 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 169,651 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.