↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) for cancer pain in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
14 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
310 Mendeley
Title
Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) for cancer pain in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006276.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam Hurlow, Michael I Bennett, Karen A Robb, Mark I Johnson, Karen H Simpson, Stephen G Oxberry

Abstract

Cancer-related pain is complex and multi-dimensional but the mainstay of cancer pain management has predominantly used a biomedical approach. There is a need for non-pharmacological and innovative approaches. Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation (TENS) may have a role in pain management but the effectiveness of TENS is currently unknown. This is an update of the original review published in Issue 3, 2008.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 310 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 306 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 36 12%
Student > Master 34 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 8%
Other 22 7%
Researcher 21 7%
Other 63 20%
Unknown 108 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 44 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 4%
Psychology 9 3%
Engineering 8 3%
Other 39 13%
Unknown 116 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 18 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,641,590
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,509
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,828
of 169,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#37
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 169,204 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 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.