| Title |
Electrochemical skin conductance: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Autonomic Research, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10286-017-0467-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Peter Novak |
| Abstract |
Currently available techniques for the evaluation of small fiber neuropathy and related sudomotor function remain suboptimal. Electrochemical skin conductance (ESC) has recently been introduced as a simple noninvasive and fast method for the detection of sudomotor dysfunction. The purpose of this review is to synthesize and appraise research using ESC measurements for sudomotor evaluation in adults. Electronic databases including MEDLINE and Google Scholar were searched (up to March 13, 2017). The search strategy included the following terms: "electrochemical skin conductance," "Sudoscan," and "EZSCAN." Evidence was graded according to defined quality indicators including (1) level of evidence; (2) use of established tests as reference tests (e.g., quantitative sudomotor axon test [QSART], sympathetic skin responses [SSR], thermoregulatory sweat test [TST], and skin biopsies to assess sudomotor and epidermal small fibers); (3) use of consecutive/non-consecutive subjects; and (4) study design (prospective/retrospective). A total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria. These were classified into preclinical, normative, comparative/diagnostic, or interventional. ESC measurement properties, diagnostic accuracy, and similarities to and differences from established tests were examined. ESC measurements expand the arsenal of available tests for the evaluation of sudomotor dysfunction. The advantages and disadvantages of ESC versus established tests for evaluating sudomotor/small fiber function reviewed herein should be used as evidence to inform future guidelines on the assessment of sudomotor function. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 80% |
| France | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 74 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 24 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 31% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 30 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 December 2020.
All research outputs
#5,563,066
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Autonomic Research
#182
of 785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,815
of 320,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Autonomic Research
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 320,414 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.