↓ 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 (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
588 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 12 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 588 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%
Denmark 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 578 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 118 20%
Student > Master 108 18%
Researcher 69 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 45 8%
Other 113 19%
Unknown 85 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 171 29%
Psychology 93 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 92 16%
Neuroscience 44 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 4%
Other 58 10%
Unknown 106 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 12 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,256,333
of 17,358,590 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,971
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,445
of 313,620 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#126
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,358,590 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 313,620 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.