↓ 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
16 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
187 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 16 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 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 1%
Norway 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 180 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 39 21%
Student > Master 33 18%
Researcher 23 12%
Student > Postgraduate 17 9%
Other 15 8%
Other 43 23%
Unknown 17 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 12%
Psychology 11 6%
Sports and Recreations 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 33 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 62. 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 15 November 2019.
All research outputs
#306,218
of 14,308,102 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#773
of 10,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,468
of 88,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,308,102 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 10,947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 88,330 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.