↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Neck-Specific Exercises Compared to Waiting List for Individuals With Chronic Whiplash-Associated Disorders: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, February 2016
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Effects of Neck-Specific Exercises Compared to Waiting List for Individuals With Chronic Whiplash-Associated Disorders: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study
Published in
Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, February 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.10.087
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anneli Peolsson, Maria Landén Ludvigsson, Ann-Marie Tigerfors, Gunnel Peterson

Abstract

To determine, whether 3-months of neck-specific exercises could benefit individuals with chronic whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) who were on a waiting list for treatment. A prospective, randomized controlled study SETTING: Primary health care PARTICIPANTS: 41 individuals (31 women, 10 men; mean age=38 y, SD=11.2) with chronic (6 to 36 months) WAD, grades 2 and 3, were analyzed. Patients were randomized to neck-specific exercises (NSE) or no treatment for 3 months. Neck-specific disability (Neck Disability Index; NDI), neck pain (Visual Analogue Scale), general pain-related disability (Pain Disability Index; PDI), self-perceived performance ability (the Self-Efficacy Scale; SES), and health-related quality of life (EuroQol five dimensions; EQ-5D) were measured. NSE significantly improved the NDI, SES, and EQ5D compared to waiting list (<0.01). There was significant improvement (p<0.0001) over time in all outcomes for NSE, and, apart from the PDI, significant worsening (p=0.002 to 0.0002) over time for the untreated group. NSE were more beneficial than no intervention while on a waiting list for individuals with chronic WAD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Unknown 83 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 22%
Student > Bachelor 16 19%
Unspecified 10 12%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 25 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 33%
Unspecified 13 15%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 7 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#1,810,385
of 12,355,877 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
#651
of 3,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,959
of 264,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
#19
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,355,877 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,765 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. 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 264,668 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 98 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.