The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
On the reliability and validity of manual muscle testing: a literature review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Chiropractic & Osteopathy, March 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1746-1340-15-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Scott C Cuthbert, George J Goodheart |
| Abstract |
A body of basic science and clinical research has been generated on the manual muscle test (MMT) since its first peer-reviewed publication in 1915. The aim of this report is to provide an historical overview, literature review, description, synthesis and critique of the reliability and validity of MMT in the evaluation of the musculoskeletal and nervous systems. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 63% |
| Unknown | 3 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | <1% |
| France | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Pakistan | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1155 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 222 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 214 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 134 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 75 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 62 | 5% |
| Other | 148 | 13% |
| Unknown | 321 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 299 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 285 | 24% |
| Sports and Recreations | 79 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 3% |
| Engineering | 37 | 3% |
| Other | 93 | 8% |
| Unknown | 343 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 58. 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 12 September 2022.
All research outputs
#780,020
of 26,401,177 outputs
Outputs from Chiropractic & Osteopathy
#5
of 83 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,282
of 91,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chiropractic & Osteopathy
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,401,177 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 83 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 91,106 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them