↓ Skip to main content

Foot orthoses for the management of low back pain: a qualitative approach capturing the patient’s perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 534)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
11 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 Mendeley
Title
Foot orthoses for the management of low back pain: a qualitative approach capturing the patient’s perspective
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1757-1146-6-17
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anita E Williams, Lindsay A Hill, Christopher J Nester

Abstract

The onset of non specific low back pain is associated with heavy lifting, age, female gender, and poor general health, with psychological factors being predictors of it becoming chronic. Additionally, it is thought that altered lower limb biomechanics are a contributory factor, with foot orthoses increasingly being considered as an appropriate intervention by physiotherapists and podiatrists. However, research into the effect of foot orthoses is inconclusive, primarily focusing on the biomechanical effect and not the symptomatic relief from the patient's perspective. The aim of this study was to explore the breadth of patients' experiences of being provided with foot orthoses and to evaluate any changes in their back pain following this experience.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 70 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 25%
Student > Bachelor 17 23%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Professor 5 7%
Other 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 21%
Sports and Recreations 5 7%
Engineering 4 5%
Unspecified 3 4%
Other 12 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 January 2019.
All research outputs
#410,447
of 13,266,991 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#15
of 534 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,825
of 149,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Foot and Ankle Research
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,266,991 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 534 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 149,604 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.