↓ Skip to main content

Comparing specialist medical care with specialist medical care plus the Lightning Process® for chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): study protocol for a randomised…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, January 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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
4 blogs
twitter
21 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 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 specialist medical care with specialist medical care plus the Lightning Process® for chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (SMILE Trial)
Published in
Trials, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-14-444
Pubmed ID
Authors

Esther Crawley, Nicola Mills, Will Hollingworth, Zuzana Deans, Jonathan A Sterne, Jenny L Donovan, Lucy Beasant, Alan Montgomery

Abstract

Chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a relatively common and potentially serious condition with a limited evidence base for treatment. Specialist treatment for paediatric CFS/ME uses interventions recommended by National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) including cognitive behavioural therapy, graded exercise therapy and activity management. The Lightning Process (LP) is a trademarked intervention derived from osteopathy, life-coaching and neuro-linguistic programming, delivered over three consecutive days as group sessions. Although over 250 children with CFS/ME attend LP courses each year, there are no reported studies on the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Unknown 120 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 39 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Sports and Recreations 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 46 37%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 09 November 2022.
All research outputs
#791,508
of 22,491,736 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#149
of 5,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,464
of 297,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#8
of 389 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,491,736 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,784 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 297,541 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 389 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 97% of its contemporaries.