↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Integrating evidence into practice: use of McKenzie-based treatment for mechanical low back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
15 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
222 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Integrating evidence into practice: use of McKenzie-based treatment for mechanical low back pain
Published in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, November 2011
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s24733
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela Dunsford, Saravana Kumar, Sarah Clarke

Abstract

Low back pain (LBP) is a major health issue with significant socioeconomic implications in most Western countries. Many forms of treatment have been proposed and investigated in the past, with exercise being a commonly prescribed intervention. Within allied health, in particular physiotherapy, there has been a growing movement that recognizes the role of the McKenzie method in treating LBP. Within the McKenzie framework, directional preference (DP) exercises are one such intervention, with preliminary data demonstrating its effectiveness in the management of LBP. In this paper, we aim to integrate the evidence from current research, identified using a systematic review, and utilize a practical real-life case scenario to outline how evidence from the literature can be implemented in clinical practice. The findings from the systematic review indicate that DP exercises may have positive effects in the management of LBP. While the body of evidence to support this is limited (only four studies) and therefore modest at best, it does provide some emerging evidence to support the use of DP exercises in clinical practice. Despite this, gaps also persist in the literature on DP exercises, and this relates to the exercise parameters and the compliance rates. Recognizing this dichotomy (modest evidence in some areas and evidence gaps in other areas), which is likely to confront health practitioners, using a practical approach with a real-life clinical scenario, we outline how the evidence from the systematic review can be implemented in clinical practice. This approach builds on the philosophy of evidence-based practice of integrating research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Unknown 215 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 15%
Student > Bachelor 31 14%
Student > Postgraduate 27 12%
Other 22 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 10%
Other 50 23%
Unknown 36 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 100 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 52 23%
Sports and Recreations 15 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Other 9 4%
Unknown 36 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,420,889
of 22,671,366 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#78
of 804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,341
of 141,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,671,366 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 141,745 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them