↓ Skip to main content

Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2005
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
58 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
296 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
476 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Acupuncture and dry-needling for low back pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2005
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001351.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea D Furlan, Maurits W van Tulder, Dan Cherkin, Hiroshi Tsukayama, Lixing Lao, Bart W Koes, Brian M Berman

Abstract

Although low-back pain is usually a self-limiting and benign disease that tends to improve spontaneously over time, a large variety of therapeutic interventions are available for its treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 476 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 476 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 1 <1%
Researcher 1 <1%
Unknown 474 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 1 <1%
Chemistry 1 <1%
Unknown 474 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 177. 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 2019.
All research outputs
#79,514
of 13,656,732 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#168
of 10,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,532
of 12,977,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#162
of 9,776 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,656,732 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,699 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 12,977,593 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9,776 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 98% of its contemporaries.