↓ Skip to main content

Classification and Diagnosis of Patients with Medically Unexplained Symptoms

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2007
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
137 Mendeley
Title
Classification and Diagnosis of Patients with Medically Unexplained Symptoms
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2007
DOI 10.1007/s11606-006-0067-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert C. Smith, Francesca C. Dwamena

Abstract

Patients with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) have little or no demonstrable disease explanation for the symptoms, and comorbid psychiatric disorders are frequent. Although common, costly, distressed, and often receiving ill-advised testing and treatments, most MUS patients go unrecognized, which precludes effective treatment. To enhance recognition, we present an emerging perspective that envisions a unitary classification for the entire spectrum of MUS where this diagnosis comprises severity, duration, and comorbidity. We then present a specific approach for making the diagnosis at each level of severity. Although our disease-based diagnosis system dictates excluding organic disease to diagnose MUS, much exclusion can occur clinically without recourse to laboratory or consultative evaluation because the majority of patients are mild. Only the less common, "difficult" patients with moderate and severe MUS require investigation to exclude organic diseases. By explicitly diagnosing and labeling all severity levels of MUS, we propose that this diagnostic approach cannot only facilitate effective treatment but also reduce the cost and morbidity from unnecessary interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 133 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 13%
Student > Master 17 12%
Researcher 16 12%
Other 9 7%
Other 31 23%
Unknown 26 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 38%
Psychology 27 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 31 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 22 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,026,270
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#871
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,644
of 164,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 164,823 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.