↓ Skip to main content

Cervical radiculopathy: Study protocol of a randomised clinical trial evaluating the effect of mobilisations and exercises targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen [NCT01500044]

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
235 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
Cervical radiculopathy: Study protocol of a randomised clinical trial evaluating the effect of mobilisations and exercises targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen [NCT01500044]
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-13-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pierre Langevin, Jean-Sébastien Roy, François Desmeules

Abstract

Cervical radiculopathy is a common form of neck pain and has been shown to lead to severe disability. Clinical rehabilitation approaches for cervical radiculopathies commonly include exercise and manual therapy interventions targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen, but evidence regarding their effectiveness is scarce. The primary objective of this randomised clinical trial is to compare, in terms of pain and disability, a rehabilitation program targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen to a conventional rehabilitation program, for patients presenting acute or subacute cervical radiculopathies. The hypothesis is that the rehabilitation program targeting the opening of intervertebral foramen will be significantly more effective in reducing pain and disability than the conventional rehabilitation program.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 229 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 46 20%
Student > Master 40 17%
Student > Postgraduate 27 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 4%
Other 34 14%
Unknown 69 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 19%
Sports and Recreations 11 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 2%
Other 12 5%
Unknown 77 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 January 2015.
All research outputs
#5,847,286
of 22,662,201 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,076
of 4,022 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,034
of 247,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#6
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,662,201 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,022 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 247,129 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.