↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
86 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
395 Mendeley
Title
Traction for low-back pain with or without sciatica
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003010.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Inge Wegner, Indah S Widyahening, Maurits W van Tulder, Stefan EI Blomberg, Henrica CW de Vet, Gert Brønfort, Lex M Bouter, Geert J van der Heijden

Abstract

Traction has been used to treat low-back pain (LBP), often in combination with other treatments. We included both manual and machine-delivered traction in this review. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1995, and previously updated in 2006.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 86 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 395 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 386 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 63 16%
Student > Master 59 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 40 10%
Other 35 9%
Researcher 34 9%
Other 93 24%
Unknown 71 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 152 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 66 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 5%
Psychology 14 4%
Sports and Recreations 12 3%
Other 45 11%
Unknown 88 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. 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 21 August 2021.
All research outputs
#294,028
of 18,917,096 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#569
of 11,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,623
of 172,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,917,096 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,892 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 172,285 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 118 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 95% of its contemporaries.