↓ Skip to main content

Maintained physical activity and physiotherapy in the management of distal upper limb pain – a protocol for a randomised controlled trial (the arm pain trial)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Maintained physical activity and physiotherapy in the management of distal upper limb pain – a protocol for a randomised controlled trial (the arm pain trial)
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-15-71
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gareth T Jones, Kathrin Mertens, Gary J Macfarlane, Keith T Palmer, David Coggon, Karen Walker-Bone, Kim Burton, Peter J Heine, Candy McCabe, Paul McNamee, Alex McConnachie

Abstract

Distal upper limb pain (pain affecting the elbow, forearm, wrist, or hand) can be non-specific, or can arise from specific musculoskeletal disorders. It is clinically important and costly, the best approach to clinical management is unclear. Physiotherapy is the standard treatment and, while awaiting treatment, advice is often given to rest and avoid strenuous activities, but there is no evidence base to support these strategies. This paper describes the protocol of a randomised controlled trial to determine, among patients awaiting physiotherapy for distal arm pain, (a) whether advice to remain active and maintain usual activities results in a long-term reduction in arm pain and disability, compared with advice to rest; and (b) whether immediate physiotherapy results in a long-term reduction in arm pain and disability, compared with physiotherapy delivered after a seven week waiting list period.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 47 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 18%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 9 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Sports and Recreations 4 8%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 June 2015.
All research outputs
#6,328,208
of 12,373,620 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#952
of 2,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,797
of 190,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,620 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 190,411 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.