↓ 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 (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
85 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
437 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 89 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 437 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 428 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 67 15%
Student > Bachelor 67 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 44 10%
Researcher 37 8%
Other 36 8%
Other 98 22%
Unknown 88 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 160 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 72 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 4%
Psychology 16 4%
Sports and Recreations 16 4%
Other 49 11%
Unknown 106 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 97. 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 15 August 2022.
All research outputs
#345,648
of 22,040,807 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#637
of 12,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,654
of 177,851 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,040,807 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 12,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 177,851 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 106 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 97% of its contemporaries.