↓ Skip to main content

Thermotherapy for treating rheumatoid arthritis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2002
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

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Thermotherapy for treating rheumatoid arthritis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002826
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vivian Welch, Lucie Brosseau, Lynn Casimiro, Maria Judd, Beverley Shea, Peter Tugwell, George A Wells

Abstract

Thermotherapy is often used as adjunct in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by rehabilitation specialists. To evaluate the effectiveness of different thermotherapy applications on objective and subjective measures of disease activity in patients with RA. We searched Medline, EMBASE, Pedro, Current Contents, Sports Discus and CINAHL up to and including September 2001. The Cochrane Field of Rehabilitation and related therapies and the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group were also contacted for a search of their specialized registers. Hand searching was conducted on all retrieved articles for additional articles. Comparative controlled studies, such as randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, cohort studies or case/control studies, of thermotherapy compared to control or active interventions in patients with RA were eligible. No language restrictions were applied. Abstracts were accepted. Two independent reviewers identified potential articles from the literature search (VR, LB). These reviewers extracted data using pre-defined extraction forms. Consensus was reached on all data extraction. Quality was assessed by two reviewers using a 5 point scale that measured the quality of randomization, double-blinding and description of withdrawals. Seven studies (n=328 subjects) met the inclusion criteria. The results of this systematic review of thermotherapy for RA found that there was no significant effect of hot and ice packs applications (Ivey 1994), cryotherapy (Rembe 1970) and faradic baths (Hawkes 1986) on objective measures of disease activity including joint swelling, pain, medication intake, range of motion (ROM), grip strength, hand function compared to a control (no treatment) or active therapy. There is no significant difference between wax and therapeutic ultrasound as well as between wax and faradic bath combined to ultrasound for all the outcomes measured after 1, 2 or 3 week(s) of treatment (Hawkes 1986). There was no difference in patient preference for all types of thermotherapy. No harmful effects of thermotherapy were reported. Superficial moist heat and cryotherapy can be used as a palliative therapy. Paraffin wax baths combined with exercises can be recommended for beneficial short term effects for arthritic hands. These conclusions are limited by methodological considerations such as the poor quality of trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 119 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 7 6%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 35 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 17%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 41 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 29 May 2019.
All research outputs
#948,457
of 13,918,259 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,895
of 10,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,689
of 210,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#132
of 534 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,918,259 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 10,755 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 210,594 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 534 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.