↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

What is this page? Embed badge

Cervico-thoracic or lumbar sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
171 Mendeley
Summary Policy documents Twitter Facebook Wikipedia Dimensions citations
Title
Cervico-thoracic or lumbar sympathectomy for neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002918.pub3
Pubmed ID
23999944
Authors

Sebastian Straube, Sheena Derry, R Andrew Moore, Peter Cole

Abstract

This review is an update of a review first published in Issue 2, 2003, which was substantially updated in Issue 7, 2010. The concept that many neuropathic pain syndromes (traditionally this definition would include complex regional pain syndromes (CRPS)) are "sympathetically maintained pains" has historically led to treatments that interrupt the sympathetic nervous system. Chemical sympathectomies use alcohol or phenol injections to destroy ganglia of the sympathetic chain, while surgical ablation is performed by open removal or electrocoagulation of the sympathetic chain or by minimally invasive procedures using thermal or laser interruption.

View on publisher site

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 171 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 170 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 16%
Other 15 9%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 14 8%
Other 42 25%
Unknown 43 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 9%
Psychology 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 17 10%
Unknown 49 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 21 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,194,703
of 23,398,349 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,775
of 12,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,875
of 199,735 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#109
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,398,349 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,684 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 199,735 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 234 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 53% of its contemporaries.

This page is hosted by Altmetric on behalf of Cochrane Library.