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 |
Shoulder pain in primary care: diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination tests for non-traumatic acromioclavicular joint pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-14-156 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Angela Cadogan, Peter McNair, Mark Laslett, Wayne Hing |
| Abstract |
Despite numerous methodological flaws in previous study designs and the lack of validation in primary care populations, clinical tests for identifying acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) pain are widely utilised without concern for such issues. The aim of this study was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of traditional ACJ tests and to compare their accuracy with other clinical examination features for identifying a predominant ACJ pain source in a primary care cohort. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 18% |
| Spain | 3 | 11% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 7% |
| Australia | 2 | 7% |
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 4% |
| Philippines | 1 | 4% |
| France | 1 | 4% |
| South Africa | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 11 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 89% |
| Scientists | 2 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 2 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 164 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 35 | 21% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 18% |
| Other | 14 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 7% |
| Researcher | 9 | 5% |
| Other | 36 | 21% |
| Unknown | 33 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 72 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 19% |
| Sports and Recreations | 11 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 5% |
| Unknown | 38 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 28 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,762,754
of 23,184,056 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#352
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,187
of 193,749 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#6
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,184,056 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 4,122 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 193,749 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 83 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.