| Title |
Complementary Therapies for Fibromyalgia Syndrome – A Rational Approach
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Pain and Headache Reports, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11916-013-0354-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcelo Saad, Roberta de Medeiros |
| Abstract |
Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) is a complex chronic condition, the treatment of which still poses many challenges. Complementary therapies (CT) have gained increasing popularity among FMS patients. Past reviews evaluating effectiveness of CT for treatment of FMS revealed some potential benefits arising from certain modalities. However, with the data available, it becomes difficult to formulate a unique opinion about this matter. In the present paper, the authors propose some guidelines to conciliate the expectations of patients with the lack of solid evidence, in a practicable yet responsible way. Many items should be considered before prescribing, proscribing, or tolerating a CT, besides results from randomized controlled trials, such as efficacy (mechanisms of action); effectiveness (effect in practice); efficiency (cost-benefit ratio); safety; risk-benefit ratio; legislation; healthcare service involvement; practitioner characteristics; objective (purpose); and the potential of combination with conventional treatment. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 85 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 12% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 21% |
| Unknown | 22 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 13% |
| Unknown | 23 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 27 June 2013.
All research outputs
#18,341,369
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from Current Pain and Headache Reports
#664
of 799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,280
of 196,368 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Pain and Headache Reports
#21
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.8. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 196,368 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.