↓ Skip to main content

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain in primary healthcare: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2017
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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
112 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 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
Clinical practice guidelines for the management of chronic musculoskeletal pain in primary healthcare: a systematic review
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-016-0533-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dawn V. Ernstzen, Quinette A. Louw, Susan L. Hillier

Abstract

Up-to-date, high quality, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that are applicable for primary healthcare are vital to optimize services for the population with chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMSP). The study aimed to systematically identify and appraise the available evidence-based CPGs for the management of CMSP in adults presenting in primary healthcare settings. A systematic review was conducted. Twelve guideline clearinghouses and six electronic databases were searched for eligible CPGs published between the years 2000 and May 2015. CPGs meeting the inclusion criteria were appraised by three reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. Of the 1082 records identified, 34 were eligible, and 12 CPGs were included based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological rigor of CPG development was highly variable, and the median domain score was 66%. The median score for stakeholder involvement was 64%. The lowest median score was obtained for the domain applicability (48%). There was inconsistent use of frameworks to aggregate the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation in the included CPGs. The scope and content of the included CPGs focussed on opioid prescription. Numerous CPGs that are applicable for the primary healthcare of CMSP exists, varying in their scope and methodological quality. This study highlights specific elements to enhance the development and reporting of CPGs, which may play a role in the uptake of guidelines into clinical practice. These elements include enhanced reporting of methodological aspects, the use of frameworks to enhance decision making processes, the inclusion of patient preferences and values, and the consideration of factors influencing applicability of recommendations. PROSPERO CRD42015022098 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 148 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 18%
Other 15 10%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 7%
Other 33 22%
Unknown 35 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 43 29%
Medicine and Dentistry 39 26%
Psychology 7 5%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 37 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 November 2017.
All research outputs
#2,852,775
of 25,754,670 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#577
of 1,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,467
of 424,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#15
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,754,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,821 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 424,019 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.