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 |
Does targeting manual therapy and/or exercise improve patient outcomes in nonspecific low back pain? A systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, April 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-8-22 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Kent, Hanne L Mjøsund, Ditte HD Petersen |
| Abstract |
A central element in the current debate about best practice management of non-specific low back pain (NSLBP) is the efficacy of targeted versus generic (non-targeted) treatment. Many clinicians and researchers believe that tailoring treatment to NSLBP subgroups positively impacts on patient outcomes. Despite this, there are no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of targeted versus non-targeted manual therapy and/or exercise. This systematic review was undertaken in order to determine the efficacy of such targeted treatment in adults with NSLBP. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 283 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 2% |
| Unknown | 265 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 55 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 45 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 27 | 10% |
| Other | 23 | 8% |
| Researcher | 22 | 8% |
| Other | 67 | 24% |
| Unknown | 44 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 123 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 44 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 29 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 23 | 8% |
| Unknown | 48 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 June 2023.
All research outputs
#15,010,787
of 23,940,484 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#3,078
of 3,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,985
of 97,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,940,484 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 97,689 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.