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 |
Evaluating validity of various acupuncture device types: a random sequence clinical trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12906-016-1026-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jungtae Leem, Jimin Park, Gajin Han, Seulgi Eun, Meena M. Makary, Kyungmo Park, Junhee Lee, Sanghoon Lee |
| Abstract |
Although various placebo acupuncture devices have been developed and used in acupuncture research, there is controversy concerning whether these devices really serve as appropriate placebos for control groups. The proposed study is a single-center prospective random sequence participant- and assessor-blinded trial with two parallel arms. A total of 76 participants will be randomly assigned to Group 1 or Group 2 in a 1:1 ratio. Group 1 will consist of Sham Streitberger's needle, Real Streitberger's needle, and Phantom acupuncture session. Group 2 will consist of Park Sham device with real needle, Park Sham device with sham needle, and no treatment session. Participants will have a total of three acupuncture sessions in a day. The primary endpoint is blinding test questionnaire 1. Secondary endpoints are the Bang's blinding index, the Massachusetts General Hospital Acupuncture Sensation Scale index, and physiological data including heart rate, heart rate variability, and skin conductance response. This trial will evaluate the relevance of using placebo acupuncture devices as controls using a validation test procedure. Clinical Research Information Service: KCT0001347 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 50% |
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 15% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 11 | 27% |
| Unknown | 9 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 12% |
| Psychology | 3 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 30 July 2017.
All research outputs
#3,611,700
of 22,844,985 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#691
of 3,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,674
of 397,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#15
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,844,985 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 397,125 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.