You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Efficacy of Gabapentin in Patients with Central Post-stroke Pain.
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, January 2015
|
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Omid Hesami, Kourosh Gharagozli, Nahid Beladimoghadam, Farhad Assarzadegan, Behnam Mansouri, Mohammad Sistanizad |
| Abstract |
Thalamic pain syndrome, a type of central post-stroke pain (CPSP), may develops after a hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke and results in impairment of the thalamus. There is limited experience about gabapentin in treatment of central pains like CPSP. In a prospective observational study, the intensity of pain was recorded using the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at the entrance to the study. Patients eligible for treating with gabapentin, received gabapentin 300 mg twice-daily. The pain intensity was measured at entrance to the study and after one month using NRS. Decrease of 3 points from the initial NRS considered being clinically significant. From a total of 180 primarily screened patients, 84 (44 men and 40 women) were recruited. There was a significant difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment NRS (5.9 ± 2.51 vs. 4.7 ± 3.01; 95% CI: 0.442-1.962, p = 0.002). Fisher's exact test showed no statistically significant effect of clinical and demographic characteristics of patients on their therapeutic response to gabapentin. Given the safety, efficacy, well tolerability and lack of interaction with other drugs we suggest gabapentin to be more considered as a first line therapy or as add-on therapy for reducing the pain severity in patients with thalamic syndrome. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 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 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 50% |
| Professor | 1 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 1 | 50% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 50% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 24 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,711,488
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research
#63
of 467 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,784
of 359,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Iranian Journal of Pharmaceutical Research
#6
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 467 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 359,549 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.