↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
28 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
275 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
705 Mendeley
Title
Non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011142.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikki van Dessel, Madelon den Boeft, Johannes C van der Wouden, Maria Kleinstäuber, Stephanie S Leone, Berend Terluin, Mattijs E Numans, Henriëtte E van der Horst, Harm van Marwijk

Abstract

Medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) are physical symptoms for which no adequate medical explanation can be found after proper examination. The presence of MUPS is the key feature of conditions known as 'somatoform disorders'. Various psychological and physical therapies have been developed to treat somatoform disorders and MUPS. Although there are several reviews on non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and MUPS, a complete overview of the whole spectrum is missing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 705 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 695 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 126 18%
Researcher 93 13%
Student > Bachelor 89 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 77 11%
Student > Postgraduate 50 7%
Other 138 20%
Unknown 132 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 221 31%
Psychology 146 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 65 9%
Social Sciences 25 4%
Neuroscience 24 3%
Other 61 9%
Unknown 163 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 April 2022.
All research outputs
#741,095
of 23,530,272 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,507
of 12,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,722
of 262,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,530,272 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,729 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 done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 262,201 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.