↓ 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 (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
89 X users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
97 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
488 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 89 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 488 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%
Australia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 479 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 73 15%
Student > Master 67 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 46 9%
Other 40 8%
Researcher 37 8%
Other 107 22%
Unknown 118 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 168 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 75 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 4%
Sports and Recreations 18 4%
Psychology 16 3%
Other 55 11%
Unknown 138 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 99. 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 10 February 2024.
All research outputs
#427,228
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#747
of 11,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,106
of 209,782 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#12
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 11,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. 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 209,782 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 223 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 94% of its contemporaries.