↓ Skip to main content

Chiropractic and exercise for seniors with low back pain or neck pain: the design of two randomized clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2007
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
Title
Chiropractic and exercise for seniors with low back pain or neck pain: the design of two randomized clinical trials
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2007
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-8-94
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michele J Maiers, Jan Hartvigsen, Craig Schulz, Karen Schulz, Roni L Evans, Gert Bronfort

Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) and neck pain (NP) are common conditions in old age, leading to impaired functional ability and decreased independence. Manual and exercise therapies are common and effective therapies for the general LBP and NP populations. However, these treatments have not been adequately researched in older LBP and NP sufferers. The primary aim of these studies is to assess the relative clinical effectiveness of 1) manual treatment plus home exercise, 2) supervised rehabilitative exercise plus home exercise, and 3) home exercise alone, in terms of patient-rated pain, for senior LBP and NP patients. Secondary aims are to compare the three treatment approaches in regards to patient-rated disability, general health status, satisfaction, improvement and medication use, as well as objective outcomes of spinal motion, trunk strength and endurance, and functional ability. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility will also be assessed. Finally, using qualitative methods, older LBP and NP patient's perceptions of treatment will be explored and described.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
United Kingdom 2 2%
Australia 2 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 117 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 15%
Researcher 15 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 10%
Unspecified 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Other 55 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 54%
Unspecified 16 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Sports and Recreations 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 18 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 July 2014.
All research outputs
#2,259,648
of 4,032,273 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#876
of 1,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,016
of 100,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#56
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,032,273 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,426 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 100,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.