↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Norway 1 <1%
Unknown 144 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 17%
Student > Postgraduate 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Other 13 9%
Other 38 26%
Unknown 28 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 12%
Psychology 5 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 15 10%
Unknown 33 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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
#1,457,134
of 17,466,651 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,675
of 11,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,380
of 169,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#42
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,466,651 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,696 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 169,969 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 130 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 68% of its contemporaries.