↓ Skip to main content

Comparing the effects of individualized, standard, sham and no acupuncture in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Comparing the effects of individualized, standard, sham and no acupuncture in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: a multicenter randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-129
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eun-Jung Kim, Chi-Yeon Lim, Eun-Yong Lee, Seung-Deok Lee, Kap-Sung Kim

Abstract

Acupuncture is an effective yet complex therapy, integrating syndrome differentiation, selection of appropriate acupoints and skillful needling techniques. Clinicians carefully tailor acupuncture treatment to each patient. However, most clinical trials of acupuncture have been based on a standardized formula of points for every patient without properly accounting for individualdifferences and, as a result, have not been reflective of the true efficacy of clinical practice. To determine the efficacy of meridian-based syndrome differentiation and Sa-am acupuncture, we have designed a simple pragmatic trial providing individualized treatments while working within a general framework.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Unknown 77 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 27%
Student > Master 17 22%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 6%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Materials Science 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 14 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 October 2013.
All research outputs
#3,067,323
of 4,507,509 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#1,092
of 1,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,349
of 101,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#67
of 90 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,428 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 101,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 90 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.