↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis

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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
34 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
175 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
493 Mendeley
Title
Non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008322.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fiona Cramp, Sarah Hewlett, Celia Almeida, John R Kirwan, Ernest HS Choy, Trudie Chalder, Jon Pollock, Robin Christensen

Abstract

Fatigue is a common and potentially distressing symptom for people with rheumatoid arthritis with no accepted evidence based management guidelines. Non-pharmacological interventions, such as physical activity and psychosocial interventions, have been shown to help people with a range of other long-term conditions to manage subjective fatigue.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 493 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 484 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 94 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 61 12%
Student > Bachelor 60 12%
Researcher 39 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 30 6%
Other 89 18%
Unknown 120 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 141 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 70 14%
Psychology 44 9%
Social Sciences 17 3%
Sports and Recreations 15 3%
Other 68 14%
Unknown 138 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 22 December 2017.
All research outputs
#696,272
of 22,899,952 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,413
of 12,335 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,286
of 199,321 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,899,952 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,335 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 199,321 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.