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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Latent class approach to classify LBP patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1111/jep.12115 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Martine J. Barons, Frances E. Griffiths, Nick Parsons, Anca Alba, Margaret Thorogood, Graham F. Medley, Sarah E. Lamb |
| Abstract |
Classification of patients with back pain in order to inform treatments is a long-standing aim in medicine. We used latent class analysis (LCA) to classify patients with low back pain and investigate whether different classes responded differently to a cognitive behavioural intervention. The objective was to provide additional guidance on the use of cognitive behavioural therapy to both patients and clinicians. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 69 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 18% |
| Researcher | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 13% |
| Psychology | 6 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 21% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 13 November 2014.
All research outputs
#2,366,041
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#172
of 1,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,245
of 223,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,434 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 223,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 95% of its contemporaries.