↓ Skip to main content

Advice to rest in bed versus advice to stay active for acute low-back pain and sciatica

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2010
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 (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
248 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Advice to rest in bed versus advice to stay active for acute low-back pain and sciatica
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007612.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristin Thuve Dahm, Kjetil G Brurberg, Gro Jamtvedt, Kåre Birger Hagen

Abstract

Acute low-back pain (LBP) is a common reason to consult a general practitioner. Debate continues on the comparative effectiveness of advice on bed rest and staying active as part of the primary care management.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 230 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 19%
Student > Bachelor 36 15%
Researcher 32 13%
Other 25 10%
Unspecified 23 9%
Other 86 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 121 49%
Unspecified 32 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 5%
Psychology 13 5%
Other 45 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 26 January 2019.
All research outputs
#253,692
of 12,605,805 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#705
of 10,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,347
of 85,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,605,805 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,377 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 85,182 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 35 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 94% of its contemporaries.