↓ Skip to main content

Image‐guided versus blind glucocorticoid injection for shoulder pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
113 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
256 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
Image‐guided versus blind glucocorticoid injection for shoulder pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009147.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason E Bloom<sup>a</sup>, Adam Rischin<sup>a</sup>, Renea V Johnston, Rachelle Buchbinder

Abstract

Traditionally, glucocorticoid injection for the treatment of shoulder pain has been performed guided by anatomical landmarks alone. With the advent of readily available imaging tools such as ultrasound, image-guided injections have increasingly become accepted into routine care. While there is some evidence that the use of imaging improves accuracy, it is unclear from current evidence whether or not it improves patient-relevant outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 256 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Switzerland 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 250 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 19%
Researcher 34 13%
Student > Bachelor 29 11%
Other 24 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 7%
Other 51 20%
Unknown 51 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 128 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 38 15%
Psychology 8 3%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Sports and Recreations 4 2%
Other 15 6%
Unknown 59 23%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 March 2024.
All research outputs
#2,038,563
of 25,564,614 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,354
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,827
of 186,391 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#68
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,564,614 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 186,391 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 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 68% of its contemporaries.