| Title |
The TOPSHOCK study: Effectiveness of radial shockwave therapy compared to focused shockwave therapy for treating patellar tendinopathy - design of a randomised controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-12-229 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Henk van der Worp, Johannes Zwerver, Inge van den Akker-Scheek, Ron L Diercks |
| Abstract |
Patellar tendinopathy is a chronic overuse injury of the patellar tendon that is especially prevalent in people who are involved in jumping activities. Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy is a relatively new treatment modality for tendinopathies. It seems to be a safe and promising part of the rehabilitation program for patellar tendinopathy. Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy originally used focused shockwaves. Several years ago a new kind of shockwave therapy was introduced: radial shockwave therapy. Studies that investigate the effectiveness of radial shockwave therapy as treatment for patellar tendinopathy are scarce. Therefore the aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of focussed shockwave therapy and radial shockwave therapy as treatments for patellar tendinopathy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 247 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Serbia | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 244 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 48 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 47 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 18 | 7% |
| Researcher | 16 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 33 | 13% |
| Unknown | 73 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 71 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 40 | 16% |
| Sports and Recreations | 28 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 17 | 7% |
| Unknown | 83 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 May 2014.
All research outputs
#13,657,597
of 22,653,392 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,970
of 4,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,163
of 135,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#43
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,653,392 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 135,951 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.