↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Non-pharmacological interventions for chronic pain in people with spinal cord injury

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
750 Mendeley
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 750 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 740 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 132 18%
Student > Master 123 16%
Researcher 78 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 56 7%
Other 138 18%
Unknown 165 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 191 25%
Psychology 105 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 104 14%
Neuroscience 48 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 3%
Other 83 11%
Unknown 193 26%

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
#4,387,766
of 23,700,294 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,940
of 12,753 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,309
of 365,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#154
of 279 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,700,294 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,753 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.4. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 365,948 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 279 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.