↓ Skip to main content

Myofascial Trigger Points: Peripheral or Central Phenomenon?

Overview of attention for article published in Current Rheumatology Reports, November 2013
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
309 Mendeley
Title
Myofascial Trigger Points: Peripheral or Central Phenomenon?
Published in
Current Rheumatology Reports, November 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11926-013-0395-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

César Fernández-de-las-Peñas, Jan Dommerholt

Abstract

Trigger points (TrP) are hyperirritable spots in a taut band of a skeletal muscle, which usually have referred pain. There is controversy over whether TrP are a peripheral or central nervous system phenomenon. Referred pain, the most characteristic sign of TrP, is a central phenomenon initiated and activated by peripheral sensitization, whereby the peripheral nociceptive input from the muscle can sensitize dorsal horn neurons that were previously silent. TrP are a peripheral source of nociception, and act as ongoing nociceptive stimuli contributing to pain propagation and widespread pain. Several studies support the hypothesis that TrP can induce central sensitization, and appropriate TrP treatment reduces central sensitization. In contrast, preliminary evidence suggests that central sensitization can also promote TrP activity, although further studies are needed. Proper TrP management may prevent and reverse the development of pain propagation in chronic pain conditions, because inactivation of TrP attenuates central sensitization.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 309 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 306 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 58 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 35 11%
Student > Bachelor 27 9%
Researcher 22 7%
Other 22 7%
Other 81 26%
Unknown 64 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 113 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 66 21%
Sports and Recreations 18 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 5%
Neuroscience 10 3%
Other 19 6%
Unknown 69 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 16 February 2020.
All research outputs
#3,580,385
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from Current Rheumatology Reports
#134
of 718 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,736
of 303,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Rheumatology Reports
#4
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 718 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 303,230 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 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.