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 |
A Postmarket Surveillance Study on Electro-Neuro-Adaptive-Regulator Therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM), June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1155/2014/341256 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rod P. Bonello, Marc Cohen, John Reece, Arun Aggarwal, Curtis Rigney |
| Abstract |
The Electro-Neuro-Adaptive-Regulator (ENAR) device is a hand-held electrotherapy which is applied using energetic medicine principles and aspects of acupuncture theory. The aim of this paper is to report the findings of a postmarket survey of persons who have used the ENAR device. The conditions for which the therapy was used and its perceived effectiveness are discussed. A web-based survey of Australian recipients of ENAR therapy was completed by 481 respondents. Most (76%) used ENAR exclusively for pain relief for musculoskeletal disorders, especially back, shoulder, and neck pain; 8% used ENAR exclusively for nonmusculoskeletal disorders; while 16% used ENAR for both. Respondents reported a mean reduction in pain of 70% (t(423) = 38.73, P < .001) and functional improvement of 62% (t(423) = 10.45, P < .001) using 11-point numerical rating scales. Following ENAR treatment, medication reduction was reported by 91% of respondents. Most respondents reported high satisfaction following ENAR therapy, with between 15 and 20% achieving complete pain relief. The self-delivery of ENAR may, in part, account for the high level of satisfaction. |
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 | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 20% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
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 09 June 2015.
All research outputs
#14,845,374
of 25,754,670 outputs
Outputs from Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM)
#2,663
of 9,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,128
of 242,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM)
#50
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,754,670 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 242,947 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.