| Title |
Effect of a single session of muscle-biased therapy on pain sensitivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s37272 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Charles W Gay, Meryl J Alappattu, Rogelio A Coronado, Maggie E Horn, Mark D Bishop |
| Abstract |
Muscle-biased therapies (MBT) are commonly used to treat pain, yet several reviews suggest evidence for the clinical effectiveness of these therapies is lacking. Inadequate treatment parameters have been suggested to account for inconsistent effects across studies. Pain sensitivity may serve as an intermediate physiologic endpoint helping to establish optimal MBT treatment parameters. The purpose of this review was to summarize the current literature investigating the short-term effect of a single dose of MBT on pain sensitivity in both healthy and clinical populations, with particular attention to specific MBT parameters of intensity and duration. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Uruguay | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 110 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 14% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 26 | 23% |
| Unknown | 27 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 22% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 27 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 February 2022.
All research outputs
#7,430,186
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#748
of 1,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,878
of 292,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#8
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 292,111 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.