↓ Skip to main content

Muscle energy technique for non-specific low-back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
387 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
Muscle energy technique for non-specific low-back pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009852.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helge Franke, Gary Fryer, Raymond WJG Ostelo, Steven J Kamper

Abstract

Low-back pain (LBP) is responsible for considerable personal suffering due to pain and reduced function, as well as the societal burden due to costs of health care and lost work productivity. For the vast majority of people with LBP, no specific anatomical cause can be reliably identified. For these people with non-specific LBP there are numerous treatment options, few of which have been shown to be effective in reducing pain and disability. The muscle energy technique (MET) is a treatment technique used predominantly by osteopaths, physiotherapists and chiropractors which involves alternating periods of resisted muscle contractions and assisted stretching. To date it is unclear whether MET is effective in reducing pain and improving function in people with LBP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 387 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Korea, Republic of 2 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 382 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 82 21%
Student > Bachelor 71 18%
Researcher 34 9%
Student > Postgraduate 33 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 33 9%
Other 85 22%
Unknown 49 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 147 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 87 22%
Sports and Recreations 15 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Psychology 10 3%
Other 53 14%
Unknown 65 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 28 March 2020.
All research outputs
#691,514
of 15,335,820 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,947
of 11,169 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,760
of 218,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#57
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,335,820 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,169 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 218,035 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.