↓ Skip to main content

Physical tests for shoulder impingements and local lesions of bursa, tendon or labrum that may accompany impingement

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
70 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
78 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
435 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
Physical tests for shoulder impingements and local lesions of bursa, tendon or labrum that may accompany impingement
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007427.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nigel CA Hanchard, Mário Lenza, Helen HG Handoll, Yemisi Takwoingi

Abstract

Impingement is a common cause of shoulder pain. Impingement mechanisms may occur subacromially (under the coraco-acromial arch) or internally (within the shoulder joint), and a number of secondary pathologies may be associated. These include subacromial-subdeltoid bursitis (inflammation of the subacromial portion of the bursa, the subdeltoid portion, or both), tendinopathy or tears affecting the rotator cuff or the long head of biceps tendon, and glenoid labral damage. Accurate diagnosis based on physical tests would facilitate early optimisation of the clinical management approach. Most people with shoulder pain are diagnosed and managed in the primary care setting.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 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 435 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 420 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 130 30%
Student > Bachelor 57 13%
Other 39 9%
Student > Postgraduate 38 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 37 9%
Other 93 21%
Unknown 41 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 231 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 65 15%
Sports and Recreations 23 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 2%
Psychology 9 2%
Other 36 8%
Unknown 62 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 20 October 2019.
All research outputs
#439,563
of 14,355,539 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,218
of 10,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,627
of 151,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,355,539 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 151,038 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.