↓ 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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 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, Adam Rischin, 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Switzerland 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 166 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 22%
Researcher 26 15%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Other 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Other 50 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 16%
Unspecified 18 10%
Psychology 6 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 10 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#844,518
of 13,516,269 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,681
of 10,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,496
of 126,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,516,269 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 126,695 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.