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 |
Influence of Control Group on Effect Size in Trials of Acupuncture for Chronic Pain: A Secondary Analysis of an Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0093739 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hugh MacPherson, Emily Vertosick, George Lewith, Klaus Linde, Karen J. Sherman, Claudia M. Witt, Andrew J. Vickers |
| Abstract |
In a recent individual patient data meta-analysis, acupuncture was found to be superior to both sham and non-sham controls in patients with chronic pain. In this paper we identify variations in types of sham and non-sham controls used and analyze their impact on the effect size of acupuncture. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Norway | 2 | 25% |
| Brazil | 1 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| United States | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 158 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 153 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 29 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 15% |
| Researcher | 20 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 31 | 20% |
| Unknown | 29 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 72 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 29 | 18% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Unknown | 37 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 30 March 2017.
All research outputs
#574,122
of 24,137,933 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#7,963
of 207,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,404
of 230,422 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#235
of 5,458 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,137,933 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 207,446 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 230,422 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 5,458 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.