↓ Skip to main content

Physiotherapy for Parkinson's disease: a comparison of techniques

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
559 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
Physiotherapy for Parkinson's disease: a comparison of techniques
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002815.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claire L Tomlinson, Clare P Herd, Carl E Clarke, Charmaine Meek, Smitaa Patel, Rebecca Stowe, Katherine HO Deane, Laila Shah, Catherine M Sackley, Keith Wheatley, Natalie Ives

Abstract

Despite medical therapies and surgical interventions for Parkinson's disease (PD), patients develop progressive disability. The role of physiotherapy is to maximise functional ability and minimise secondary complications through movement rehabilitation within a context of education and support for the whole person. The overall aim is to optimise independence, safety and wellbeing, thereby enhancing quality of life. Trials have shown that physiotherapy has short-term benefits in PD. However, which physiotherapy intervention is most effective remains unclear.

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 559 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
Portugal 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 3 <1%
Unknown 538 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 105 19%
Student > Bachelor 99 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 60 11%
Researcher 52 9%
Student > Postgraduate 46 8%
Other 126 23%
Unknown 71 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 194 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 114 20%
Neuroscience 31 6%
Psychology 26 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 4%
Other 81 14%
Unknown 92 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#3,135,381
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,564
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,812
of 188,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#127
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 188,475 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.