↓ Skip to main content

Avoidable costs of physical treatments for chronic back, neck and shoulder pain within the Spanish National Health Service: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 2,757)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
92 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
Avoidable costs of physical treatments for chronic back, neck and shoulder pain within the Spanish National Health Service: a cross-sectional study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 2011
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-12-287
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro Serrano-Aguilar, Francisco M Kovacs, Jose M Cabrera-Hernández, Juan M Ramos-Goñi, Lidia García-Pérez

Abstract

Back, neck and shoulder pain are the most common causes of occupational disability. They reduce health-related quality of life and have a significant economic impact. Many different forms of physical treatment are routinely used. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost of physical treatments which, despite the absence of evidence supporting their effectiveness, were used between 2004 and 2007 for chronic and non-specific neck pain (NP), back pain (BP) and shoulder pain (SP), within the Spanish National Health Service in the Canary Islands (SNHSCI).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 92 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 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 1%
Germany 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 145 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 14%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Other 70 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 14%
Unspecified 20 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Sports and Recreations 5 3%
Other 32 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. 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 25 September 2018.
All research outputs
#248,771
of 13,865,532 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#26
of 2,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,177
of 210,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,865,532 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 210,869 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.