| Title |
Non‐pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in people with spinal cord injury
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009177.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Inga Boldt, Inge Eriks‐Hoogland, Martin WG Brinkhof, Rob de Bie, Daniel Joggi, Erik von Elm |
| Abstract |
Chronic pain is frequent in persons living with spinal cord injury (SCI). Conventionally, the pain is treated pharmacologically, yet long-term pain medication is often refractory and associated with side effects. Non-pharmacological interventions are frequently advocated, although the benefit and harm profiles of these treatments are not well established, in part because of methodological weaknesses of available studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 33% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 794 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 784 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 130 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 127 | 16% |
| Researcher | 82 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 62 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 55 | 7% |
| Other | 133 | 17% |
| Unknown | 205 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 194 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 107 | 13% |
| Psychology | 106 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 51 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 26 | 3% |
| Other | 77 | 10% |
| Unknown | 233 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 07 October 2022.
All research outputs
#4,857,628
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,973
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,364
of 369,786 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#151
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 369,786 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.