↓ Skip to main content

Study protocol: The back pain outcomes using longitudinal data (BOLD) registry

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (56th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Study protocol: The back pain outcomes using longitudinal data (BOLD) registry
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-13-64
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeffrey G Jarvik, Bryan A Comstock, Brian W Bresnahan, Srdjan S Nedeljkovic, David R Nerenz, Zoya Bauer, Andrew L Avins, Kathryn James, Judith A Turner, Patrick Heagerty, Larry Kessler, Janna L Friedly, Sean D Sullivan, Richard A Deyo

Abstract

Back pain is one of the most important causes of functional limitation, disability, and utilization of health care resources for adults of all ages, but especially among older adults. Despite the high prevalence of back pain in this population, important questions remain unanswered regarding the comparative effectiveness of commonly used diagnostic tests and treatments in the elderly. The overall goal of the Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) project is to establish a rich, sustainable registry to describe the natural history and evaluate prospectively the effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of interventions for patients 65 and older with back pain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Portugal 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 60 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 17%
Student > Master 8 12%
Unspecified 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 17 26%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 44%
Unspecified 13 20%
Psychology 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 1 2%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 May 2012.
All research outputs
#6,432,659
of 12,373,620 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#992
of 2,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,561
of 118,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#6
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,620 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 118,030 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.