| Title |
Spinal Stimulation for Movement Disorders
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurotherapeutics, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13311-014-0291-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire Thiriez, Jean-Marc Gurruchaga, Colette Goujon, Gilles Fénelon, Stéphane Palfi |
| Abstract |
Epidural spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is currently proposed to treat intractable neuropathic pain. Since the 1970s, isolated cases and small cohorts of patients suffering from dystonia, tremor, painful leg and moving toes (PLMT), or Parkinson’s disease were also treated with SCS in the context of exploratory clinical studies. Despite the safety profile of SCS observed in these various types of movement disorders, the degree of improvement of abnormal movements following SCS has been heterogeneous among patients and across centers in open-label trials, stressing the need for larger, randomized, double-blind studies. This article provides a comprehensive review of both experimental and clinical studies of SCS application in movement disorders. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Iceland | 1 | 1% |
| Ireland | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 87 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 18 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 13% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 14% |
| Unknown | 21 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 27% |
| Neuroscience | 16 | 18% |
| Engineering | 8 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 25 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 29 September 2014.
All research outputs
#7,139,497
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Neurotherapeutics
#685
of 1,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,269
of 242,347 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurotherapeutics
#5
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,307 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 242,347 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.