↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Psychological therapies for the management of chronic neuropathic pain in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
56 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
92 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
274 Mendeley
Title
Psychological therapies for the management of chronic neuropathic pain in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011259.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Eccleston, Leslie Hearn, Amanda C de C Williams

Abstract

Neuropathic pain is thought to arise from damage to the somatosensory nervous system. Its prevalence is increasing in line with many chronic disorders such as diabetes. All treatments have limited effectiveness. Given the evidence regarding psychological treatment for distress and disability in people with various chronic pain conditions, we were interested to investigate whether psychological treatments have any effects for those with chronic neuropathic pain. To assess the effects of psychological treatments on pain experience, disability, mood, and health-care use in adults with chronic neuropathic pain. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in any language in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, from database inception to March 2015. Full publications of RCTs on psychological interventions for neuropathic pain. Trials had to have lasted at least three months, had at least 20 participants in each arm at the end of treatment, and compared a psychological intervention with any active or inactive intervention. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two small studies (enrolling a total of 105 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One was a standard cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) programme for 61 people with pain from spinal cord injury, followed up for three months, and compared with a waiting list. The other was weekly group psychotherapy for 44 people with burning mouth syndrome, compared with a daily placebo tablet. The overall risk of bias was high in both trials.The CBT study assessed participants for pain, disability, mood, and quality of life, with improvement in treatment and control groups. However, there was no more improvement in the treatment group than in the control for any outcome, either post-treatment or at follow-up. The group psychotherapy study only assessed pain, classifying participants by pain severity. There is a lack of evidence on the efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for people with neuropathic pain. There is insufficient evidence of the efficacy and safety of psychological interventions for chronic neuropathic pain. The two available studies show no benefit of treatment over either waiting list or placebo control groups.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 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 274 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 271 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 20%
Student > Bachelor 34 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 12%
Researcher 28 10%
Other 14 5%
Other 44 16%
Unknown 67 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 28%
Psychology 41 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 13%
Social Sciences 11 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 2%
Other 28 10%
Unknown 76 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 01 February 2021.
All research outputs
#833,107
of 20,842,105 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,903
of 12,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,245
of 300,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#63
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,842,105 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 12,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 300,693 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.