↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antiepileptic drugs for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia - an overview of Cochrane reviews

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
114 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
242 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
390 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Antiepileptic drugs for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia - an overview of Cochrane reviews
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010567.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip J Wiffen, Sheena Derry, R Andrew Moore, Dominic Aldington, Peter Cole, Andrew SC Rice, Michael PT Lunn, Katri Hamunen, Maija Haanpaa, Eija A Kalso

Abstract

Antiepileptic drugs have been used for treating different types of neuropathic pain, and sometimes fibromyalgia. Our understanding of quality standards in chronic pain trials has improved to include new sources of potential bias. Individual Cochrane reviews using these new standards have assessed individual antiepileptic drugs. An early review from this group, originally published in 1998, was titled 'Anticonvulsants for acute and chronic pain'. This overview now covers the neuropathic pain aspect of that original review, which was withdrawn in 2009.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 114 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 390 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 382 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 72 18%
Student > Bachelor 51 13%
Researcher 47 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 34 9%
Other 32 8%
Other 86 22%
Unknown 68 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 170 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 33 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 28 7%
Neuroscience 16 4%
Psychology 13 3%
Other 48 12%
Unknown 82 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 96. 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 13 May 2021.
All research outputs
#286,956
of 18,949,038 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#556
of 11,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,951
of 204,449 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,949,038 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,894 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 204,449 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 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 94% of its contemporaries.