Journal of Adult Development
Are you a researcher?
Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
SCImago
Q2
WOS
Q3
Impact factor
1.8
SJR
0.619
CiteScore
3.9
Categories
Developmental and Educational Psychology
Life-span and Life-course Studies
Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
Areas
Psychology
Social Sciences
Years of issue
1994-2025
journal names
Journal of Adult Development
J ADULT DEV
Top-3 citing journals

Journal of Adult Development
(459 citations)

Frontiers in Psychology
(270 citations)

Current Psychology
(210 citations)
Top-3 organizations

Towson University
(29 publications)

Harvard University
(22 publications)

Brigham Young University
(17 publications)

Brigham Young University
(4 publications)

Texas Tech University
(4 publications)

University of Texas at Austin
(4 publications)
Most cited in 5 years
Found
Publications found: 690
Q1

Assessing the readiness and feasibility to implement a model of care for spine disorders and related disability in Cross Lake, an Indigenous community in northern Manitoba, Canada: a research protocol
Bussières A., Passmore S., Kopansky-Giles D., Tavares P., Ward J., Ladwig J., Glazebrook C., Mior S., Atkinson-Graham M., Moss J., Robak N., Broeckelmann E., Monias D.A., Mckay D.Z., Hamilton H., et. al.
Abstract
Background
Since the 1990s, spine disorders have remained the leading cause of global disability, disproportionately affecting economically marginalized individuals, rural populations, women, and older people. Back pain related disability is projected to increase the most in remote regions where lifestyle and work are increasingly sedentary, yet resources and access to comprehensive healthcare is generally limited. To help tackle this worldwide health problem, World Spine Care Canada, and the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) launched a four-phase project aiming to address the profound gap between evidence-based spine care and routine care delivered to people with spine symptoms or concerns in communities that are medically underserved. Phase 1 conclusions and recommendations led to the development of a model of care that included a triaging system and spine care pathways that could be implemented and scaled in underserved communities around the world.
Methods
The current research protocol describes a site-specific customization and pre-implementation study (Phase 2), as well as a feasibility study (Phase 3) to be conducted in Cross Lake, an Indigenous community in northern Manitoba, Canada. Design: Observational pre-post design using a participatory mixed-methods approach. Relationship building with the community established through regular site visits will enable pre- and post-implementation data collection about the model of spine care and provisionally selected implementation strategies using a community health survey, chart reviews, qualitative interviews, and adoption surveys with key partners at the meso (community leaders) and micro (clinicians, patients, community residents) levels. Recruitment started in March 2023 and will end in March 2026. Surveys will be analyzed descriptively and interviews thematically. Findings will inform co-tailoring of implementation support strategies with project partners prior to evaluating the feasibility of the new spine care program.
Discussion
Knowledge generated from this study will provide essential guidance for scaling up, sustainability and impact (Phase 4) in other northern Canada regions and sites around the globe. It is hoped that implementing the GSCI model of care in Cross Lake will help to reduce the burden of spine problems and related healthcare costs for the local community, and serve as a scalable model for programs in other settings.
Q1

Public perception of chiropractic in the Taiwanese population: a cross-sectional survey
Chang H., de Luca K., Fernandez M., Quinton A.
Abstract
Background
Research on perception of chiropractic is abundant in Western contexts, yet sparse in Asia. This study aims to bridge this gap by examining the perceptions of chiropractic among Taiwanese adults, focusing on demographics, utilisation, beliefs, and understanding.
Methods
An adapted survey with 27 close-ended items was administered to assess Taiwanese adults’ perception of chiropractic. The electronic survey, using Qualtrics, was delivered worldwide via Taiwanese Facebook groups from January 31 to March 31, 2024. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies and cross tabulations, were performed.
Results
A total of 769 individuals were surveyed, with 475 participants providing complete data. Over half of the participants (62%) had never visited a chiropractor, but in those who had visited a chiropractor 78% reported satisfaction. Of 475 participants, 45% considered chiropractic care safe while 34% were unsure. Though almost half (42%) were unclear about what chiropractors do, most participants (67%) expressed interest in learning more. Among the 151 participants with prior experience of chiropractic care, the demographic profile was 54% women, and individuals aged 28 to 37 (44%), and those with an undergraduate degree (52%) were most common.
Conclusion
Overall, our study found a positive perception and high acceptance of chiropractic among the Taiwanese population; however, generalisability may be limited due to the risk of selection bias. An understanding of the chiropractic profession was notably limited. Hence, efforts are needed to enhance awareness of chiropractic accreditation, clinical competencies, and its potential role in public healthcare in Taiwan.
Q1

Development and preliminary validation of the Danish headache questionnaire
Dissing K.B., Jensen R.K., Christensen H.W., Jensen M.E., Lauridsen H.H.
Abstract
Background
The prevalence of headache disorders is imposing a growing burden on public health. Although most patients are seen in primary care, there is an absence of validated questionnaires designed to describe how clinicians manage patients with headache in primary care. The aim of this study was to develop a standardised headache questionnaire for use by primary care clinicians, covering diagnostic procedures, management strategies, and treatment modalities, and to assess the prevalence of consultations for headache in primary care.
Methods
The Danish Headache Questionnaire was developed through a three-phase process: a development phase, a content validation phase via iterative feedback, and a phase to create a generic English version. The Danish Headache Questionnaire includes a survey that covers diagnostic procedures, management strategies, and treatment modalities, and a logbook for tracking the prevalence of consultations for headaches. The questionnaire was tested by Danish chiropractors in primary care from 2020 to 2022.
Results
The Danish Headache Questionnaire underwent several modifications. The survey was expanded to include questions about the Danish profession-specific guideline for managing headaches, different headache types, medical history, radiographic imaging, and potential side effects. The logbook was revised to allow for the documentation of multiple headaches and included a separate form for recording the total number of consultations. The generic version was adapted by removing or adjusting profession-specific terms and questions to suit other clinical environments. The final Danish Headache Questionnaire is available in a generic and a chiropractic-specific format, and was translated to English through a cross-cultural adaptation process.
Conclusions
The Danish Headache Questionnaire has good content validity and is a feasible tool for assessing clinicians’ knowledge in managing patients with headaches and gathering data on headache prevalence in primary care. The generic version promotes a uniform approach and enables comparative analysis across different settings. The Danish Headache Questionnaire may be a valuable instrument guiding teaching a standardised assessment and for clinical assessment in primary care. Furthermore, it may have the potential to fill in gaps of knowledge which could improve the management of headache disorders in primary care.
Q1

A multi-level implementation strategy to increase adoption of chiropractic care for low back pain in primary care clinics: a randomized stepped-wedge pilot study protocol
Roseen E.J., Bussières A., Reichman R., Bora C., Trieu J., Austad K., Williams C., Fischer R.A., Parrilla D., Laird L.D., LaValley M., Evans R.L., Saper R.B., Morone N.E.
Abstract
Introduction
Limited adoption of first line treatments for low back pain (LBP) in primary care settings may contribute to an overreliance on pain medications by primary care providers (PCPs). While chiropractic care typically includes recommended nonpharmacologic approaches (e.g., manual therapy, exercise instruction, advice on self-care), implementation strategies to increase adoption of chiropractic care for LBP in primary care clinics are understudied, particularly in underserved communities.
Methods
We will use a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled pilot trial design to evaluate the feasibility of a multi-level implementation strategy to increase adoption of chiropractic care for LBP in primary care clinics at community health centers. Key barriers and facilitators identified by site champions and other key stakeholders will help us to develop and tailor implementation strategies including educational materials and meetings, developing a network of local chiropractors, and modifying the electronic health record to facilitate referrals. Three primary care clinics will be randomized to receive the implementation strategy first, second, or third over a fourteen-month study period. At our first clinic, we will have a four-month pre-implementation period, a two-month implementation deployment period, and a subsequent eight-month follow-up period. We will stagger the start of our implementation strategy, beginning in a new clinic every two months. We will evaluate the proportion of patients with LBP who receive a referral to chiropractic care in the first 21 days after their index visit with PCP. We will also evaluate adoption of other guideline concordant care (e.g., other nonpharmacologic treatments) and non-guideline concordant care (e.g., opioids, imaging) over the study period.
Discussion
LBP is currently the leading cause of disability worldwide. While there are several treatment options available for individuals with LBP, patients in underserved populations do not often access recommended nonpharmacologic treatment options such as chiropractic care. The results from this study will inform the development of practical implementation strategies that may improve access to chiropractic care for LBP in the primary care context. Furthermore, results may also inform policy changes needed to expand access to chiropractic care in underserved communities.
Clintrials.gov NCT#
NCT06104605.
Q1

Preliminary insights into the effects of spinal manipulation therapy of different force magnitudes on blood biomarkers of oxidative stress and pro-resolution of inflammation mediators
Duarte F.C., Funabashi M., Starmer D., Partata W.A.
Abstract
Background
Evidence has been reported that spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) leads to spine segmental hypoalgesia through neurophysiological and peripheral mechanisms related to regulating inflammatory biomarker function. However, these studies also showed substantial inter-individual variability in the biomarker responses. Such variability may be due to the incomplete understanding of the fundamental effects of force-based manipulations (e.g., patient-specific force-time characteristics) on a person’s physiology in health and disease. This study investigated the short-term effects of distinct SMT force-time characteristics on blood oxidative stress and pro-resolution of inflammation biomarkers.
Methods
Nineteen healthy adults between 18 and 45 years old were recruited between February and March 2020 before the COVID-19 pandemic and clustered into three groups: control (preload only), target total peak force of 400 N, and 800 N. A validated force-sensing table technology (FSTT®) determined the SMT force-time characteristics. Blood samples were collected at pre-intervention, immediately after SMT, and 20 min post-intervention. Parameters of the oxidant system (total oxidant status, lipid peroxidation and lipid hydroperoxide), the antioxidant system (total antioxidant capacity and bilirubin), and lipid-derived resolvin D1 were evaluated in plasma and erythrocytes through enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and colorimetric assays.
Results
The COVID-19 global pandemic impacted recruitment, and our pre-established target sample size could not be reached. As a result, there was a small sample size, which decreased the robustness of the statistical analysis. Despite the limitations, we observed that 400 N seemed to decrease systemic total oxidant status and lipid peroxidation biomarkers. However, 800 N appeared to transitorily increase these pro-oxidant parameters with a further transitory reduction in plasma total antioxidant capacity and resolvin D1 mediator.
Conclusion
Despite the small sample size, which elevates the risk of type II error (false negatives), and the interruption of recruitment caused by the pandemic, our findings appeared to indicate that different single SMT force-time characteristics presented contrasting effects on the systemic redox signalling biomarkers and pro-resolution of inflammation mediators in healthy participants. The findings need to be confirmed by further research; however, they provide baseline information and guidance for future studies in a clinical population.
Q1

Insights into how manual therapists incorporate the biopsychosocial-enactive model in the care of individuals with CLBP: a qualitative study
Bianchi M., Rossettini G., Cerritelli F., Esteves J.E.
Abstract
Background
Chronic low back pain (CLBP) presents a significant challenge for manual therapists. Recent advancements in pain research have highlighted the limitations of the traditional biomedical and biopsychosocial models, prompting the exploration of alternatives. The biopsychosocial-enactive (BPS-E) model has emerged as a promising alternative. This study aims to explore the application of the BPS-E model by manual therapists in managing CLBP and to initiate a meaningful dialogue about its use.
Methods
This study adhered to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Guided by constructivist grounded theory, we conducted semi-structured interviews with ten manual therapists who are experts in the BPS-E model. Data collection, conceptualization, and analysis were systematically carried out to identify key themes and insights.
Results
The core theme identified was “The person-centred approach,” with three subthemes: “Opportunities in implementing the model”, “Utilizing and Integrating Diverse Skills for Holistic Care”, and “Challenges in implementing the model”.
Conclusion
This study provides insights into how manual therapists incorporate the BPS-E model in their practice, demonstrating its advantages over the traditional biopsychosocial model. The findings highlight the need for further research and training to effectively implement the BPS-E model in clinical settings. This research begins an essential discussion on the potential of the BPS-E model to enhance care for CLBP patients.
Q1

Supported biopsychosocial self-management for back-related leg pain: a randomized feasibility study integrating a whole person perspective
Leininger B., Evans R., Greco C.M., Hanson L., Schulz C., Schneider M., Connett J., Keefe F., Glick R.M., Bronfort G.
Abstract
Background
There is limited high-quality research examining conservative treatments for back-related leg pain (BRLP). This feasibility study was done in preparation for a full-scale trial comparing a whole-person supported self-management intervention to medical care for chronic BRLP.
Methods
Participants were randomized to 12 weeks of individualized supported self-management delivered by physical therapists and chiropractors or medical care consisting of guideline-based pharmacologic care. Supported self-management was based on a behavioral model that used a whole person approach to enhance participants capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to engage in self-care. It combined BRLP education with psychosocial strategies (e.g., relaxed breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, guided imagery, communication skills) and physical modalities such as exercise and spinal manipulation therapy. Providers were trained to address participants’ individualized needs and use behavior change and motivational communication techniques to develop a therapeutic alliance to facilitate self-management. Feasibility was assessed using pre-specified targets for recruitment and enrollment, intervention delivery, and data collection over the six-month study period. In addition, areas for potential refinement and optimization of processes and protocols for the full-scale trial were assessed.
Results
We met or exceeded nearly all feasibility targets. Forty-two participants were enrolled over a six-month period in 2022 and very few individuals declined participation due to preferences for one treatment. All but one participant received treatment and 95% of participants attended the minimum number of visits (self-management = 6, medical care = 2). At 12 weeks, 95% of participants in the self-management group reported engaging in self-management practices learned in the program and 77% of medical care participants reported taking medications as prescribed. Satisfaction with the self-management intervention was high with 85% of participants reporting satisfaction with the program overall. Self-management intervention providers delivered all required activities at 72% of visits. Providers also noted some challenges navigating the shared decision-making process and deciding what self-management tools to prioritize. Over the six-month study period, completion rates were 91% for monthly surveys and 86% for weekly surveys.
Conclusion
We were able to demonstrate that a full-scale randomized trial comparing a whole-person supported self-management intervention to medical care for chronic BRLP is feasible and identified important areas for optimization.
Q1

Patient preferences for chiropractors’ attire: a cross-sectional study of UQTR university-based chiropractic clinic
Leduc L., Théroux J., Marois C., Lavigne G., Blanchette M.
Abstract
Background
A significant body of research has examined how the attire of physicians and nurses affects patients’ perceptions, preferences, and outcomes. However, limited research has focused on the clothing worn by other health professionals, such as chiropractors. The present study aims to explore patients’ preferences and perceptions of chiropractors’ attire.
Methods
Using a cross-sectional image-based procedure, new patients to a university clinic were questioned regarding their preferences for four different attires (casual, formal, scrub, and white coat) worn by both a male and a female chiropractor. Patients also reported their perceptions in terms of chiropractors’ knowledge, trustworthiness, competence, professionalism, and comfortable for each photograph.
Results
From August 10, 2022, to January 23, 2023, 75 new patients participated in the study. Results indicated a strong preference for scrubs for both male and female chiropractors. Chiropractors in scrubs were also seen as more knowledgeable, trustworthy, competent, and professional, and comfortable. This was closely followed by those wearing white coats and formal attire. Notably, the white coat worn by the female chiropractor received significantly more positive ratings than when worn by her male counterpart.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our findings suggest that chiropractors’ attire influences patients’ perceptions and should be considered in the development of dress codes for public and private clinics. Further research is essential to understand better how the gender and age of care providers affect patient evaluations.
Q1

'Which treatment do you believe you received?' A randomised blinding feasibility trial of spinal manual therapy
Muñoz Laguna J., Kurmann A., Hofstetter L., Nyantakyi E., Braun J., Clack L., Bang H., Farshad M., Foster N.E., Puhan M.A., Hincapié C.A., Mühlemann M., Caviezel C., Ehrler M., Häusler M., et. al.
Abstract
Background
Blinding is essential for mitigating biases in trials of low back pain (LBP). Our main objectives were to assess the feasibility of blinding: (1) participants randomly allocated to active or placebo spinal manual therapy (SMT), and (2) outcome assessors. We also explored blinding by levels of SMT lifetime experience and recent LBP, and factors contributing to beliefs about the assigned intervention.
Methods
A two-parallel-arm, single-centre, placebo-controlled, blinding feasibility trial. Adults were randomised to active SMT (n = 40) or placebo SMT (n = 41). Participants attended two study visits for their assigned intervention, on average seven days apart. The primary outcome was participant blinding (beliefs about assigned intervention) using the Bang blinding index (BI) at two study visits. The Bang BI is arm-specific, chance-corrected, and ranges from − 1 (all incorrect beliefs) to 1 (all correct beliefs), with 0 indicating equal proportions of correct and incorrect beliefs. Secondary outcomes included factors contributing to beliefs about the assigned intervention.
Results
Of 85 adults screened, 81 participants were randomised (41 [51%] with SMT lifetime experience; 29 [39%] with recent LBP), and 80 (99%) completed follow-up. At study visit 1, 50% of participants in the active SMT arm (Bang BI: 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.26 to 0.74]) and 37% in the placebo SMT arm (0.37 [95% CI, 0.10 to 0.63]) had a correct belief about their assigned intervention, beyond chance. At study visit 2, BIs were 0.36 (0.08 to 0.64) and 0.29 (0.01 to 0.57) for participants in the active and placebo SMT arms, respectively. BIs among outcome assessors suggested adequate blinding at both study visits (active SMT: 0.08 [− 0.05 to 0.20] and 0.03 [− 0.11 to 0.16]; placebo SMT: − 0.12 [− 0.24 to 0.00] and − 0.07 [− 0.21 to 0.07]). BIs varied by participant levels of SMT lifetime experience and recent LBP. Participants and outcome assessors described different factors contributing to their beliefs.
Conclusions
Adequate blinding of participants assigned to active SMT may not be feasible with the intervention protocol studied, whereas blinding of participants in the placebo SMT arm may be feasible. Blinding of outcome assessors seemed adequate. Further methodological work on blinding of SMT is needed.
Trial registration number
NCT05778396.
Q1

Chiropractic international research collaborative (CIRCuit): the development of a new practice-based research network, including the demographics, practice, and clinical management characteristics of clinician participants
Young K.J., Aspinall S., Mior S., Gliedt J., Spencer J., Børsheim C., Nash J., Ricci M., Shurr J., Axén I.
Abstract
Objectives
To describe the structure and development of a new international, chiropractic, practice-based research network (PBRN), the Chiropractic International Research Collaborative (CIRCuit), as well as the demographic, practice, and clinical management characteristics of its clinician participants. An electronic survey was used to collect information on their demographics, practice, and clinical management characteristics from clinicians from 17 October through 28 November 2022. Descriptive statistics were used to report the results.
Background
PBRNs are an increasingly popular way of facilitating clinic-based studies. They provide the opportunity to collaboratively develop research projects involving researchers, clinicians, patients and support groups. We are unaware of any international PBRNs, or any that have a steering group comprised of equal numbers of clinicians representing the different international regions.
Results
77 chiropractors responded to the survey (0.7% of EBCN-FB members). 48 were men (62%), 29 women (38%). Thirty-six (47%) were in North America, 18 (23%) in Europe, and 15 (19%) in Oceania. Participants reported predominantly treating musculoskeletal issues, often with high-velocity, low-amplitude spinal manipulation (95%), but also with soft tissue therapy (95%), exercise (95%), and other home care (up to 100%).
Methods
The development of CIRCuit is described narratively. Members of the Evidence-Based Chiropractic Network Facebook group (EBCN-FB) were invited to become clinician participants by participating in the survey.
Conclusions
This paper describes the development of a new PBRN for chiropractors. It offers a unique opportunity to facilitate the engagement of clinical chiropractors with research, as well as for academics to readily be able to access an international cohort of clinicians to collaboratively develop and conduct research. Although the results of the survey are not statistically generalisable, the initial cohort of CIRCuit clinician participants use similar techniques on similar types of conditions as the profession at large. The international structure is unique among PBRNs and offers the opportunity to help develop innovative research projects.
Q1

The association between individual radiographic findings and improvement after chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise among older adults with back-related disability: a secondary analysis
Maiers M.J., Albertson A.K., Major C., Mendenhall H., Petrie C.P.
Abstract
Background
Some chiropractors use spinal x-rays to inform care, but the relationship between radiographic findings and outcomes is unclear. This study examined the association between radiographic findings and 30% improvement in back-related disability in older adults after receiving 12 weeks of chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise instruction.
Methods
This IRB-approved secondary analysis used randomized trial data of community-dwelling adults age ≥ 65 with chronic spinal pain and disability. Data were collected during the parent trial between January 2010-December 2014. The primary outcome of the parent study was ≥ 30% improvement in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 weeks, a clinically important response to care. In this secondary analysis, two chiropractic radiologists independently assessed digital lumbar radiographs for pre-specified anatomic, degenerative, and alignment factors; differences were adjudicated. The unadjusted association between baseline radiographic factors and 30% ODI improvement was determined using chi-square tests.
Results
From the parent trial, 120 adults with baseline lumbar radiographs were included in this study. Mean age was 70.4 years (range 65–81); 59.2% were female. Mean baseline disability (ODI = 25.6) and back pain (5.2, 0–10 scale) were moderate. Disc degeneration (53.3% moderate, 13.3% severe), anterolisthesis (53.3%), retrolisthesis (36.6%) and scoliosis (35.0%) were common among the participant sample. After 12-weeks of treatment, 51 (42.5%) participants achieved 30% improvement in back disability. No alignment, degenerative, or anatomic factors were associated with ODI improvement at 12 weeks (all p > 0.05), regardless of severity of radiographic findings.
Conclusion
We found no association between a predetermined subset of radiographic findings and improvement in back-related disability among this sample of older adults. As such, this study provides preliminary data suggesting that imaging may be unhelpful for predicting response to chiropractic spinal manipulation and home exercise.
Q1

Provider kinematic strategies during the delivery of spinal manipulation and mobilization: a scoping review of the literature
Svoboda K., Howarth S.J., Funabashi M., Gorrell L.M.
Abstract
Background
Spinal manipulation (MAN) and mobilization (MOB) are biomechanically different yet both elicit pain reduction and increased range of motion. Previous investigations have focused on quantifying kinetics (e.g., applied forces) or, recipient kinematics (i.e., movements) during MAN and MOB. While these studies provide valuable information, they do not report on the strategies adopted by providers when performing the complex motor tasks of MAN and MOB. This review sought to synthesise the literature reporting on provider kinematics during the delivery of MAN and MOB.
Methods
This scoping literature review is reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) statement. MEDLINE (Ovid), PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, PEDro, ICL and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to September 2023 for terms relating to provider kinematics during the delivery of MAN and MOB. Data were extracted and reported descriptively, including: general study characteristics, number and characteristics of individuals who delivered/received MAN and/or MOB, region treated, equipment used and kinematic parameters of the individual delivering the procedure.
Results
Of 4,844 records identified, five (0.1%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Of these, provider kinematics were reported for the delivery of MAN in four (80%) and for the delivery of MOB in one (20%) article. Practitioners applied the procedure in all (100%) and students in one (20%) study. Spinal regions treated were: lumbar (n = 4), thoracic (n = 2) and cervical (n = 1). Data were reported heterogeneously but were most commonly captured using either video or motion capture equipment (n = 4, 80%). The direction of applied force was fully reported in one (20%) and only partially reported (one spinal region) in another study.
Conclusions
There are a small number of studies reporting heterogeneously on provider kinematics during the delivery of MAN and MOB. Clear reporting of the procedure from a biomechanical perspective and of the measurement equipment used could enable future meta-analysis of provider kinematic data, the use of provider kinematic data in the development of technique skills curricula and could feasibly be used to mitigate risk of injury for providers.
Q1

Diagnostic imaging in the management of older adults with low back pain: analysis from the BAck Complaints in Elders: Chiropractic – Australia cohort study
Jenkins H.J., Grace K., Young A., Parker F., Hartvigsen J., Rubinstein S.M., French S.D., de Luca K.
Abstract
Background
Diagnostic imaging is commonly used in the management of low back pain (LBP), with approximately one-quarter of those who present to primary care referred for imaging. Current estimates of imaging frequency commonly exclude older adults; however, pathology detected with imaging (e.g., osteoporosis, cancer) may occur more frequently in older populations. The aims of this study were to: (i) determine the frequency and forms of diagnostic imaging use in older adults presenting for chiropractic care for LBP in Australia; (ii) describe participant characteristics associated with imaging use; and (iii) describe the types of radiographic findings.
Methods
Data were collected from the BAck Complaints in Elders: Chiropractic-Australia (BACE: C-A) study, a 12-month, prospective cohort study of adults aged ≥ 55 years with a new episode of LBP. Self-reported frequency of imaging use (baseline, 2 and 6 weeks, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months) was reported descriptively by imaging modality. Imaging reports were obtained, and imaging findings were independently extracted and categorised. Baseline characteristics were assessed for differences in those who received imaging compared to those who did not. Proportions of imaging use and imaging findings were presented descriptively with 95% confidence intervals.
Results
The BACE: C-A cohort comprised 217 participants of whom 60.8% reported receiving diagnostic imaging for their current episode of LBP. X-ray was performed most (44.7%), followed by computed tomography (CT) (30.8%). Participants receiving imaging reported higher low back disability, more healthcare use for LBP, more frequent leg pain, more suspected serious pathology, and stronger beliefs that imaging was important. Degenerative changes were the most common imaging finding (96.6%). Pathology of possible clinical significance, including compression fracture or suspected osteoporosis, was present in 15.5% of participants.
Conclusion
Three out of five older adults with LBP who sought chiropractic care received imaging over one-year. Participants receiving imaging tended to have more complex presentations (e.g., more disability, suspected underlying pathology) or stronger beliefs that imaging was necessary for the management of LBP. Degenerative changes were the most common imaging finding. Pathology of potential clinical relevance was present on approximately 15% of imaging reports received. No conditions requiring immediate medical attention were reported.
Q1

Factors that contribute to the perceived treatment effect of spinal manipulative therapy in a chiropractic teaching clinic: a qualitative study
Boylan P.
Abstract
Background
Despite the progress made in better understanding the potential mechanisms of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) and its treatment effects, a knowledge gap continues to exist when identifying the specific factors that contribute to the perceived treatment effect associated with SMT. The purpose of the study was to explore the perceptions of chiropractic clinicians, interns, and patients regarding what factors during a doctor-patient encounter contribute to the perceived treatment effect associated with SMT.
Methods
This study used convenience sampling to enroll participants from a chiropractic teaching clinic in the United States. Semi-structured interviews were used as the main form of data collection, which took place from January-April 2024. The data was subsequently analyzed using thematic analysis and organized into themes through an iterative open coding process.
Results
Six rounds of interviews were conducted for a total of 18 interviews. Each round consisted of one patient who received treatment including SMT, one intern who performed the treatment, and one clinician who oversaw the treatment. After analyzing the interview data, the following five themes were identified: Treatment Outcome, Therapeutic Alliance, Adjunctive Therapies, Significance of Cavitation, and Psychomotor Skills. Each theme consisted of multiple subthemes which were mentioned by the participant groups at varying frequencies. Patients frequently mentioned the importance of improvement in symptoms following treatment, as well as good communication skills and the use of adjunctive therapies. Interns valued functional change following treatment, while clinicians focused on confidence levels and psychomotor skills. There were differing views on the significance of cavitation, ranging from indifference to an indication of a successful treatment.
Conclusion
This qualitative study identified several themes which describe factors that may contribute to the perceived effect associated with SMT. In addition to the psychomotor skills required to perform SMT, educators and practitioners should consider factors such as the therapeutic alliance between patient and provider, use of adjunctive therapies, and assessment of the outcome associated with the intervention.
Q1

Cross cultural adaptation and validation of the Hindi version of foot function index
Sidiq M., Chahal A., Sharma J., Rai R.H., Kashoo F.Z., Jayavelu J., Kashyap N., Vajrala K.R., Veeragoudhaman T.S., Arasu V., Janakiraman B.
Abstract
Background
The Foot Function Index (FFI) is a reliable and widely used standardized questionnaire that measures the impact of foot pathology on function. With 571 million Hindi-speaking people living globally and an increasing incidence of foot-related pathologies, it is imperative to cross-culturally translate and adapt a Hindi version of the FFI (FFI-Hi). We aimed to translate, cross-cultural adapt, and psychometrically test the FFI-Hi for use in Hindi-speaking individuals with foot conditions.
Methods
The translation of FFI-Hi was performed according to guidelines given by MAPI Research Trust. A total of 223 Hindi-speaking participants afflicted with foot conditions completed the FFI-Hi alongside the Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire. The study duration spanned between October 2023 and January 2024. The initial phase was the translation and adaptation of FFI to cultural context. Followed by testing of psychometric properties involving of 133 participants for the test-retest reliability of FFI-Hi after a 7-day interval.
Results
The mean age of the participants was 47.10 (± 8.1) years. The majority of the participants were male (n = 148, 66.4%) and the most common foot condition was plantar fasciopathy (n = 91, 40.8%). The mean score of FF-Hi was 33.7 ± 11.7. The internal consistency of FFI-Hi was good with the Cronbach’s alpha (α) value of 0.891 and excellent reproducibility with the intra-class correlation of 0.90. The 95% minimal detectable change (MCD) and the standard error of measurement of the FFI-Hi was 22.02 and 7.94 respectively. Convergent validity between FFI-Hi subscales and SF-36 domains was moderate. Factor analysis corroborated the multidimensional nature of the FFI-Hi.
Conclusion
The FFI-Hindi version was successfully cross-culturally adapted, translated and demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties to be used in clinical practice and research. Further, the context-specific Hindi language version of FFI will enhance the utility of FFI in foot function evaluation and remove language barrier in patients reporting disability and activity limitation related to foot conditions.
Registration
Clinical Trials Registry of India (CTRI/2023/07/055734).
Top-100
Citing journals
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
|
|
Journal of Adult Development
459 citations, 3.37%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychology
270 citations, 1.99%
|
|
Current Psychology
210 citations, 1.54%
|
|
Emerging Adulthood
174 citations, 1.28%
|
|
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
170 citations, 1.25%
|
|
Journal of Child and Family Studies
120 citations, 0.88%
|
|
Journal of Religion and Health
103 citations, 0.76%
|
|
PLoS ONE
103 citations, 0.76%
|
|
International Journal of Aging and Human Development
100 citations, 0.74%
|
|
Memory
91 citations, 0.67%
|
|
Aging and Mental Health
81 citations, 0.6%
|
|
Journal of Happiness Studies
79 citations, 0.58%
|
|
Personality and Individual Differences
77 citations, 0.57%
|
|
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
70 citations, 0.51%
|
|
International Journal of Behavioral Development
55 citations, 0.4%
|
|
Journal of Family Issues
54 citations, 0.4%
|
|
Family Relations
53 citations, 0.39%
|
|
Journal of Youth and Adolescence
52 citations, 0.38%
|
|
Journals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences
50 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Mindfulness
50 citations, 0.37%
|
|
Journal of Personality
48 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Identity
47 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Journal of Religion, Spirituality and Aging
47 citations, 0.35%
|
|
Journal of Research in Personality
46 citations, 0.34%
|
|
Mental Health, Religion and Culture
44 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Family Process
44 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Psychological Reports
44 citations, 0.32%
|
|
SSRN Electronic Journal
43 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Religions
42 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
42 citations, 0.31%
|
|
Frontiers in Psychiatry
41 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Children and Youth Services Review
41 citations, 0.3%
|
|
Journal of Adolescence
39 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Journal of Adolescent Research
39 citations, 0.29%
|
|
Journal of Positive Psychology
36 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Sustainability
35 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Behavioral Sciences
34 citations, 0.25%
|
|
Applied Cognitive Psychology
33 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Educational Gerontology
32 citations, 0.24%
|
|
The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion
32 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Memory and Cognition
32 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Journal of Aging Studies
30 citations, 0.22%
|
|
Journal of Business Ethics
29 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
29 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Counseling and Values
29 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Ageing and Society
29 citations, 0.21%
|
|
Journal of Marriage and Family
27 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Journal of Youth Studies
26 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Personal Relationships
26 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Social Indicators Research
26 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Journal of Homosexuality
25 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Marriage and Family Review
25 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Scientific Reports
25 citations, 0.18%
|
|
European Journal of Ageing
25 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Advances in Life Course Research
25 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of Affective Disorders
25 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Journal of Gerontological Social Work
24 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology
23 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Sex Roles
23 citations, 0.17%
|
|
Sexuality Research and Social Policy
22 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Family Journal
22 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health
22 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Healthcare
22 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Frontiers in Public Health
22 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
22 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Child Abuse and Neglect
21 citations, 0.15%
|
|
BMC psychology
21 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Research on Aging
20 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Applied Research in Quality of Life
20 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Journal of Clinical Psychology
20 citations, 0.15%
|
|
SAGE Open
20 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Research in Developmental Disabilities
20 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Archives of Sexual Behavior
19 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics
19 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Social Sciences
19 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Family Theory and Review
19 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Genetic Psychology
19 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Research on Adolescence
19 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Research in Human Development
19 citations, 0.14%
|
|
Journal of Vocational Behavior
18 citations, 0.13%
|
|
New Ideas in Psychology
18 citations, 0.13%
|
|
International Psychogeriatrics
18 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Contemporary Family Therapy
18 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment
18 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Journal of Bisexuality
18 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Perspectives on Psychological Science
17 citations, 0.12%
|
|
BMJ Open
17 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Futures
17 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
17 citations, 0.12%
|
|
New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development
17 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Review of General Psychology
16 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Psychology and Aging
16 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
16 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of American College Health
16 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Pastoral Psychology
16 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Learning and Individual Differences
16 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Counselor Education and Supervision
16 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Moral Education
16 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Intergenerational Relationships
16 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Journal of Psychology and Theology
16 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
|
Citing publishers
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
|
|
Springer Nature
2500 citations, 18.38%
|
|
Taylor & Francis
2172 citations, 15.97%
|
|
Wiley
1475 citations, 10.84%
|
|
SAGE
1424 citations, 10.47%
|
|
Elsevier
1413 citations, 10.39%
|
|
MDPI
467 citations, 3.43%
|
|
Cambridge University Press
444 citations, 3.26%
|
|
Frontiers Media S.A.
410 citations, 3.01%
|
|
Oxford University Press
243 citations, 1.79%
|
|
Emerald
203 citations, 1.49%
|
|
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
112 citations, 0.82%
|
|
IGI Global
94 citations, 0.69%
|
|
American Psychological Association (APA)
88 citations, 0.65%
|
|
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
76 citations, 0.56%
|
|
Hogrefe Publishing Group
67 citations, 0.49%
|
|
Social Science Electronic Publishing
43 citations, 0.32%
|
|
Mary Ann Liebert
37 citations, 0.27%
|
|
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
35 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Guilford Publications
35 citations, 0.26%
|
|
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
34 citations, 0.25%
|
|
JMIR Publications
32 citations, 0.24%
|
|
Hindawi Limited
30 citations, 0.22%
|
|
28 citations, 0.21%
|
|
BMJ
27 citations, 0.2%
|
|
Moscow State University of Psychology and Education
26 citations, 0.19%
|
|
CAIRN
26 citations, 0.19%
|
|
Walter de Gruyter
25 citations, 0.18%
|
|
Scientific Research Publishing
23 citations, 0.17%
|
|
S. Karger AG
22 citations, 0.16%
|
|
Brill
20 citations, 0.15%
|
|
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
18 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Hans Publishers
18 citations, 0.13%
|
|
Academy of Management
16 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Europe's Journal of Psychology
16 citations, 0.12%
|
|
SciELO
16 citations, 0.12%
|
|
IntechOpen
16 citations, 0.12%
|
|
Biola University
15 citations, 0.11%
|
|
AOSIS
14 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Annual Reviews
13 citations, 0.1%
|
|
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
13 citations, 0.1%
|
|
Uniwersytet Jagiellonski - Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego
12 citations, 0.09%
|
|
The Japanese Association of Educational Psychology
12 citations, 0.09%
|
|
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
11 citations, 0.08%
|
|
Mark Allen Group
11 citations, 0.08%
|
|
IOP Publishing
10 citations, 0.07%
|
|
SLACK
10 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Research Square Platform LLC
10 citations, 0.07%
|
|
IOS Press
9 citations, 0.07%
|
|
EDP Sciences
9 citations, 0.07%
|
|
University of Chicago Press
9 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Index Copernicus
9 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Akademiai Kiado
9 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Consortium Erudit
9 citations, 0.07%
|
|
International Society for Neurofeedback Research (ISNR)
9 citations, 0.07%
|
|
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
8 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Springer Publishing Company
8 citations, 0.06%
|
|
Human Kinetics
8 citations, 0.06%
|
|
World Scientific
7 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
7 citations, 0.05%
|
|
Departamento de Psicologia, Universidade de Brasilia
7 citations, 0.05%
|
|
China Science Publishing & Media
7 citations, 0.05%
|
|
OpenEdition
7 citations, 0.05%
|
|
6 citations, 0.04%
|
|
University of Illinois Press
6 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Sociedade Brasileira de Psicologia
6 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Foundation for the Blind
6 citations, 0.04%
|
|
National Recreation and Park Association
6 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Korean Counseling Association
6 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID)
6 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Men's Studies Press, LLC
6 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Franco Angeli
6 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Associacao Brasileira de Enfermagem
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
MIT Press
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Academy of Pediatrics
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Royal College of Psychiatrists
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Slovenian Psychologists' Association
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
Ubiquity Press
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
American Educational Research Association
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
The Japanese Psychological Association
5 citations, 0.04%
|
|
John Benjamins Publishing Company
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
PeerJ
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
AME Publishing Company
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Society for Psychotherapy Research (SPR - Italia)
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
European Society for Research on the Education of Adults
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Nederlands Instituut voor Gerontologie (NIG)
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
F1000 Research
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Consortia Academia Publishing
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
Bristol University Press
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
National Academic Advising Association (NACADA)
4 citations, 0.03%
|
|
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
AIP Publishing
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Speech Language Hearing Association
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Universidade Sao Francisco
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Oncology Nursing Society
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
American Medical Association (AMA)
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Unisa Press
3 citations, 0.02%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
|
Publishing organizations
5
10
15
20
25
30
|
|
Towson University
29 publications, 3.57%
|
|
Harvard University
22 publications, 2.71%
|
|
Brigham Young University
17 publications, 2.09%
|
|
University of Michigan
15 publications, 1.85%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
13 publications, 1.6%
|
|
University of Jyväskylä
10 publications, 1.23%
|
|
University of California, Berkeley
10 publications, 1.23%
|
|
University of Cambridge
9 publications, 1.11%
|
|
University of Texas at Austin
9 publications, 1.11%
|
|
Wilfrid Laurier University
9 publications, 1.11%
|
|
Northwestern University
8 publications, 0.98%
|
|
West Virginia University
8 publications, 0.98%
|
|
Loyola University Maryland
8 publications, 0.98%
|
|
University of Haifa
7 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Florida State University
7 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
7 publications, 0.86%
|
|
Wayne State University
7 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
7 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of Maryland, Baltimore
7 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of Tennessee
7 publications, 0.86%
|
|
University of Helsinki
6 publications, 0.74%
|
|
Arizona State University
6 publications, 0.74%
|
|
York University
6 publications, 0.74%
|
|
Texas Tech University
6 publications, 0.74%
|
|
University of North Texas
6 publications, 0.74%
|
|
Beijing Normal University
5 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Bar-Ilan University
5 publications, 0.62%
|
|
University of Zurich
5 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Michigan State University
5 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Columbia University
5 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Syracuse University
5 publications, 0.62%
|
|
University of California, Los Angeles
5 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Boston College
5 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Fordham University
5 publications, 0.62%
|
|
University of Florida
5 publications, 0.62%
|
|
University of Utah
5 publications, 0.62%
|
|
University of Greenwich
5 publications, 0.62%
|
|
Tel Aviv University
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Turin
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
North Dakota State University
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Iowa State University
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Melbourne
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Stanford University
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Boston University
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Chinese University of Hong Kong
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
George Mason University
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
New York University
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
San Francisco State University
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Simon Fraser University
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of British Columbia
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Minnesota
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Toronto
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Guelph
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Delaware
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Old Dominion University
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
University of Connecticut
4 publications, 0.49%
|
|
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Umeå University
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Nantes
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Université Catholique de Louvain
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Cagliari
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
National Chi Nan University
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Adelaide
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Clemson University
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Education University of Hong Kong
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Colorado State University
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Boston Children's Hospital
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Arizona
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Osaka University
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Central Florida
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of South Florida St. Petersburg
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
McGill University
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Purdue University
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Maryland, College Park
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Temple University
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Western University
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Brock University
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Ottawa
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Kentucky
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of New Hampshire
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
University of Memphis
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
San Jose State University
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Université de Moncton
3 publications, 0.37%
|
|
Selcuk University
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Atilim University
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Max Stern Academic College of Emek Yezreel
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Kilis 7 Aralık University
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
University of Twente
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Radboud University Nijmegen
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Karolinska Institute
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Stockholm University
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Grenoble Alpes University
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
University of Gothenburg
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
University of Lausanne
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
University of Naples Federico II
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
University of Basel
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
University of Palermo
2 publications, 0.25%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
5
10
15
20
25
30
|
Publishing organizations in 5 years
1
2
3
4
|
|
University of Texas at Austin
4 publications, 2.42%
|
|
Texas Tech University
4 publications, 2.42%
|
|
Brigham Young University
4 publications, 2.42%
|
|
Michigan State University
3 publications, 1.82%
|
|
University of British Columbia
3 publications, 1.82%
|
|
University of Greenwich
3 publications, 1.82%
|
|
Beijing Normal University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Kilis 7 Aralık University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
University of Gothenburg
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
University of Edinburgh
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Florida State University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Queensland University of Technology
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
University of Chieti-Pescara
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
North Dakota State University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Iowa State University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
George Washington University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Arizona State University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
North Carolina State University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Chinese University of Hong Kong
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Clemson University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
West Virginia University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Syracuse University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Boston Children's Hospital
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Osaka University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
University of Macau
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Cardiff University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Trier University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
University of Tokyo
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Parkside
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
University of Wisconsin–Madison
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Ritsumeikan University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Wilfrid Laurier University
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
University of Toronto
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
University of Ottawa
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
University of Guelph
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
University of Florida
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
University of Utah
2 publications, 1.21%
|
|
Ilia State University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Hacettepe University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
COMSATS University Islamabad
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Management and Technology
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Selcuk University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Gebze Technical University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Lahore College for Women University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Istanbul Bilgi University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Necmettin Erbakan University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Atilim University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Sikkim University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Harbin Institute of Technology
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Tel Aviv University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Bar-Ilan University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
O. P. Jindal Global University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Aksaray University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Sinop University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Liège
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Science, Malaysia
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Lorraine
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Haifa
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
International Medical University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Nottingham, Malaysia Campus
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Malaysia Sabah
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Grenoble Alpes University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University Tunku Abdul Rahman
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Northern University of Malaysia
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
INTI International University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Beijing Jiaotong University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Central China Normal University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Wuhan University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Nantes
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Hubei University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yafo
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Hunan Normal University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Shaanxi Normal University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Basel
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Shenzhen University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Milano-Bicocca
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Shanghai Polytechnic University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Jyväskylä
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Royal Holloway University of London
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Cagliari
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
China West Normal University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Liaoning Normal University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
National Taiwan Normal University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Jimei University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Zunyi Normal University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Universite Libre de Bruxelles
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Pavia
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Strathclyde
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Georgia Institute of technology
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Pennsylvania State University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Massey University
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Victoria University of Wellington
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Auckland University of Technology
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Waikato
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Melbourne
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Queensland
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
University of Adelaide
1 publication, 0.61%
|
|
Show all (70 more) | |
1
2
3
4
|
Publishing countries
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
|
|
USA
|
USA, 440, 54.12%
USA
440 publications, 54.12%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 54, 6.64%
Canada
54 publications, 6.64%
|
China
|
China, 39, 4.8%
China
39 publications, 4.8%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 38, 4.67%
United Kingdom
38 publications, 4.67%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 21, 2.58%
Israel
21 publications, 2.58%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 18, 2.21%
Australia
18 publications, 2.21%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 18, 2.21%
Italy
18 publications, 2.21%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 17, 2.09%
Finland
17 publications, 2.09%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 16, 1.97%
Germany
16 publications, 1.97%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 13, 1.6%
Turkey
13 publications, 1.6%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 9, 1.11%
Belgium
9 publications, 1.11%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 9, 1.11%
Netherlands
9 publications, 1.11%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 9, 1.11%
Switzerland
9 publications, 1.11%
|
France
|
France, 8, 0.98%
France
8 publications, 0.98%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 8, 0.98%
Portugal
8 publications, 0.98%
|
Spain
|
Spain, 7, 0.86%
Spain
7 publications, 0.86%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 6, 0.74%
Poland
6 publications, 0.74%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 6, 0.74%
Sweden
6 publications, 0.74%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 6, 0.74%
Japan
6 publications, 0.74%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 5, 0.62%
Republic of Korea
5 publications, 0.62%
|
Georgia
|
Georgia, 4, 0.49%
Georgia
4 publications, 0.49%
|
India
|
India, 4, 0.49%
India
4 publications, 0.49%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 4, 0.49%
Malaysia
4 publications, 0.49%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 4, 0.49%
New Zealand
4 publications, 0.49%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 3, 0.37%
Pakistan
3 publications, 0.37%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 3, 0.37%
Slovenia
3 publications, 0.37%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 2, 0.25%
Austria
2 publications, 0.25%
|
Greece
|
Greece, 2, 0.25%
Greece
2 publications, 0.25%
|
Iran
|
Iran, 2, 0.25%
Iran
2 publications, 0.25%
|
Singapore
|
Singapore, 2, 0.25%
Singapore
2 publications, 0.25%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 2, 0.25%
Czech Republic
2 publications, 0.25%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 2, 0.25%
South Africa
2 publications, 0.25%
|
Jamaica
|
Jamaica, 2, 0.25%
Jamaica
2 publications, 0.25%
|
Russia
|
Russia, 1, 0.12%
Russia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Estonia
|
Estonia, 1, 0.12%
Estonia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Bolivia
|
Bolivia, 1, 0.12%
Bolivia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 1, 0.12%
Hungary
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Ghana
|
Ghana, 1, 0.12%
Ghana
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Indonesia
|
Indonesia, 1, 0.12%
Indonesia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Cyprus
|
Cyprus, 1, 0.12%
Cyprus
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Colombia
|
Colombia, 1, 0.12%
Colombia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 1, 0.12%
Lithuania
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Nigeria
|
Nigeria, 1, 0.12%
Nigeria
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Norway
|
Norway, 1, 0.12%
Norway
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Romania
|
Romania, 1, 0.12%
Romania
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Serbia
|
Serbia, 1, 0.12%
Serbia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Thailand
|
Thailand, 1, 0.12%
Thailand
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Trinidad and Tobago
|
Trinidad and Tobago, 1, 0.12%
Trinidad and Tobago
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Uganda
|
Uganda, 1, 0.12%
Uganda
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Croatia
|
Croatia, 1, 0.12%
Croatia
1 publication, 0.12%
|
Show all (20 more) | |
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
|
Publishing countries in 5 years
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
|
|
USA
|
USA, 72, 43.64%
USA
72 publications, 43.64%
|
China
|
China, 18, 10.91%
China
18 publications, 10.91%
|
Canada
|
Canada, 14, 8.48%
Canada
14 publications, 8.48%
|
United Kingdom
|
United Kingdom, 11, 6.67%
United Kingdom
11 publications, 6.67%
|
Germany
|
Germany, 7, 4.24%
Germany
7 publications, 4.24%
|
Turkey
|
Turkey, 6, 3.64%
Turkey
6 publications, 3.64%
|
Italy
|
Italy, 4, 2.42%
Italy
4 publications, 2.42%
|
Japan
|
Japan, 4, 2.42%
Japan
4 publications, 2.42%
|
Australia
|
Australia, 3, 1.82%
Australia
3 publications, 1.82%
|
Israel
|
Israel, 3, 1.82%
Israel
3 publications, 1.82%
|
India
|
India, 3, 1.82%
India
3 publications, 1.82%
|
Malaysia
|
Malaysia, 3, 1.82%
Malaysia
3 publications, 1.82%
|
New Zealand
|
New Zealand, 3, 1.82%
New Zealand
3 publications, 1.82%
|
Pakistan
|
Pakistan, 3, 1.82%
Pakistan
3 publications, 1.82%
|
Republic of Korea
|
Republic of Korea, 3, 1.82%
Republic of Korea
3 publications, 1.82%
|
France
|
France, 2, 1.21%
France
2 publications, 1.21%
|
Portugal
|
Portugal, 2, 1.21%
Portugal
2 publications, 1.21%
|
Belgium
|
Belgium, 2, 1.21%
Belgium
2 publications, 1.21%
|
Sweden
|
Sweden, 2, 1.21%
Sweden
2 publications, 1.21%
|
Austria
|
Austria, 1, 0.61%
Austria
1 publication, 0.61%
|
Hungary
|
Hungary, 1, 0.61%
Hungary
1 publication, 0.61%
|
Georgia
|
Georgia, 1, 0.61%
Georgia
1 publication, 0.61%
|
Lithuania
|
Lithuania, 1, 0.61%
Lithuania
1 publication, 0.61%
|
Netherlands
|
Netherlands, 1, 0.61%
Netherlands
1 publication, 0.61%
|
Poland
|
Poland, 1, 0.61%
Poland
1 publication, 0.61%
|
Slovenia
|
Slovenia, 1, 0.61%
Slovenia
1 publication, 0.61%
|
Finland
|
Finland, 1, 0.61%
Finland
1 publication, 0.61%
|
Czech Republic
|
Czech Republic, 1, 0.61%
Czech Republic
1 publication, 0.61%
|
Switzerland
|
Switzerland, 1, 0.61%
Switzerland
1 publication, 0.61%
|
South Africa
|
South Africa, 1, 0.61%
South Africa
1 publication, 0.61%
|
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
|