↓ Skip to main content

Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
85 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
271 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
Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003010.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Inge Wegner, Indah S Widyahening, Maurits W van Tulder, Stefan EI Blomberg, Henrica CW de Vet, Gert Brønfort, Lex M Bouter, Geert J van der Heijden

Abstract

Traction has been used to treat low-back pain (LBP), often in combination with other treatments. We included both manual and machine-delivered traction in this review. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1995, and previously updated in 2006.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 85 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 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
India 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 261 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 46 17%
Student > Master 44 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 34 13%
Researcher 30 11%
Other 27 10%
Other 90 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 125 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 17%
Unspecified 33 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 6%
Psychology 12 4%
Other 40 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. 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 30 August 2019.
All research outputs
#216,193
of 13,571,715 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#522
of 10,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,800
of 158,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,571,715 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 158,290 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 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.