↓ Skip to main content

Spinal manipulation for dysmenorrhoea

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2006
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Spinal manipulation for dysmenorrhoea
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002119.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle Proctor, Wayne Hing, Trina C Johnson, Patricia A Murphy, Julie Brown

Abstract

Dysmenorrhoea refers to the occurrence of painful menstrual cramps of uterine origin and is a common gynaecological condition. One possible treatment is spinal manipulation therapy. One hypothesis is that mechanical dysfunction in certain vertebrae causes decreases spinal mobility. This could affect the sympathetic nerve supply to the blood vessels supplying the pelvic viscera, leading to dysmenorrhoea as a result of vasoconstriction. Manipulation of these vertebrae increases spinal mobility and may improve pelvic blood supply. Another hypothesis is that dysmenorrhoea is referred pain arising from musculoskeletal structures that share the same pelvic nerve pathways. The character of pain from musculoskeletal dysfunction can be very similar to gynaecological pain as it can present as cyclic pain altered by hormonal influences associated with menstruation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 29%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Researcher 7 11%
Other 16 24%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 17%
Unspecified 9 14%
Psychology 4 6%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 1 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 23 January 2019.
All research outputs
#340,837
of 12,840,960 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,018
of 10,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,834
of 85,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,840,960 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 10,439 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 85,672 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 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 91% of its contemporaries.