↓ Skip to main content

Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
371 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
371 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004258
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sally Green, Rachelle Buchbinder, Sarah E Hetrick

Abstract

The prevalence of shoulder disorders has been reported to range from seven to 36% of the population (Lundberg 1969) accounting for 1.2% of all General Practitioner encounters in Australia (Bridges Webb 1992). Substantial disability and significant morbidity can result from shoulder disorders. While many treatments have been employed in the treatment of shoulder disorders, few have been proven in randomised controlled trials. Physiotherapy is often the first line of management for shoulder pain and to date its efficacy has not been established. This review is one in a series of reviews of varying interventions for shoulder disorders, updated from an earlier Cochrane review of all interventions for shoulder disorder.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 371 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 4 1%
Unknown 356 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 79 21%
Student > Master 67 18%
Researcher 42 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 29 8%
Other 81 22%
Unknown 44 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 171 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 80 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 4%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Sports and Recreations 9 2%
Other 32 9%
Unknown 56 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 16 August 2019.
All research outputs
#912,576
of 14,291,740 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,731
of 10,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,685
of 211,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#126
of 521 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,291,740 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,942 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 211,604 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 521 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.