↓ Skip to main content

Barriers and progress in the treatment of low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, September 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
141 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
Barriers and progress in the treatment of low back pain
Published in
BMC Medicine, September 2011
DOI 10.1186/1741-7015-9-108
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadine E Foster

Abstract

Low back pain is a common and costly condition and for most people is likely to be a recurrent problem throughout their lifetime. The management of patients with low back pain has been positively influenced by the rise in high quality clinical trials and systematic reviews in recent decades, and this body of evidence, synthesized in many clinical practice guidelines, has improved our knowledge about which treatments for low back pain are useful and which are not. For the largest group of patients, those with non-specific low back pain for whom a clear diagnosis cannot be given, the reality is that the treatments we have to offer tend to produce small effects, often only in the short term and none appear to effectively change long-term prognosis. This commentary summarizes the array of treatments currently available, notes the results of recent trials and guidelines and considers alternative approaches that may prove more valuable in achieving better patient outcomes in the future.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 141 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 129 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 26%
Student > Bachelor 17 12%
Other 17 12%
Researcher 15 11%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Other 31 22%
Unknown 11 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Sports and Recreations 4 3%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 22 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 March 2012.
All research outputs
#2,132,660
of 12,517,134 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,245
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,995
of 95,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,517,134 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.9. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 95,103 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 58% of its contemporaries.