↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The influence of clinical equipoise and patient preferences on outcomes of conservative manual interventions for spinal pain: an experimental study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, April 2017
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
65 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
Title
The influence of clinical equipoise and patient preferences on outcomes of conservative manual interventions for spinal pain: an experimental study
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, April 2017
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s130931
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark D Bishop, Joel E Bialosky, Charles W Penza, Jason M Beneciuk, Meryl J Alappattu

Abstract

Expected pain relief from treatment is associated with positive clinical outcomes in patients with musculoskeletal pain. Less studied is the influence on outcomes related to the preference of patients and providers for a specific treatment. We sought to determine how provider and patient preferences for a manual therapy intervention influenced outcomes in individuals with acutely induced low back pain (LBP). Pain-free participants were randomly assigned to one of two manual therapies (joint biased [JB] or constant touch [CT]) 48 hours after completing an exercise protocol to induce LBP. Expectations for pain relief and preferences for treatment were collected at baseline, prior to randomization. Pain relief was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale. All study procedures were conducted in a private testing laboratory at the University of Florida campus. Sixty participants were included in this study. After controlling for preintervention pain intensity, the multivariate model included only preintervention pain (B=0.12, p=0.07) and provider preference (B=3.05, p<0.0001) and explained 35.8% of the variance in postintervention pain. When determining whether a participant met his or her expected pain relief, receiving an intervention from a provider with a strong preference for that intervention increased the odds of meeting a participant's expected pain relief 68.3 times (p=0.013) compared to receiving any intervention from a provider with no preference. Receiving JB intervention from any provider increased the odds of meeting expected relief 29.7 times (p=0.023). The effect of a participant receiving an intervention they preferred was retained in the model but did not meet the criteria for a significant contribution. Our primary findings were that participant and provider preferences for treatment positively influence pain outcomes in individuals with acutely induced LBP, and joint-biased interventions resulted in a greater chance of meeting participants' expected outcomes. This is contrary to our hypothesis that the interaction of receiving an intervention for which a participant had a preference would result in the best outcome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 137 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 20 15%
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 9%
Researcher 7 5%
Other 25 18%
Unknown 35 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 46 34%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 24%
Sports and Recreations 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 9 7%
Unknown 37 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. 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 02 November 2023.
All research outputs
#958,854
of 25,822,778 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#123
of 2,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,233
of 325,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#5
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,822,778 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 2,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. 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 325,087 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 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 92% of its contemporaries.