↓ Skip to main content

Active rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cognitive-behavioral, physical, or both? First direct post-treatment results from a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN22714229]

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
153 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 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
Active rehabilitation for chronic low back pain: Cognitive-behavioral, physical, or both? First direct post-treatment results from a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN22714229]
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, January 2006
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-7-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rob JEM Smeets, Johan WS Vlaeyen, Alita Hidding, Arnold DM Kester, Geert JMG van der Heijden, Antonia CM van Geel, J André Knottnerus

Abstract

The treatment of non-specific chronic low back pain is often based on three different models regarding the development and maintenance of pain and especially functional limitations: the deconditioning model, the cognitive behavioral model and the biopsychosocial model. There is evidence that rehabilitation of patients with chronic low back pain is more effective than no treatment, but information is lacking about the differential effectiveness of different kinds of rehabilitation. A direct comparison of a physical, a cognitive-behavioral treatment and a combination of both has never been carried out so far.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 3%
United States 4 2%
Netherlands 3 1%
Germany 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 195 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 16%
Student > Bachelor 32 15%
Researcher 30 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 21 10%
Other 42 20%
Unknown 14 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 20%
Psychology 27 13%
Sports and Recreations 10 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 20 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,153,335
of 13,606,026 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#649
of 2,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,081
of 119,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,606,026 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. 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 119,916 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them