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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| 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
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 14% |
| Spain | 1 | 7% |
| Chile | 1 | 7% |
| Sweden | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 9 | 64% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 79% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 313 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 | 309 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 34 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 8% |
| Researcher | 23 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 7% |
| Other | 60 | 19% |
| Unknown | 112 | 36% |
| 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 | 38 | 12% |
| Unknown | 120 | 38% |
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
#1,710,203
of 26,205,030 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,489
of 13,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,971
of 170,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#37
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,205,030 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 13,193 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 170,324 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 186 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.