↓ Skip to main content

Sudomotor function testing by electrochemical skin conductance: does it really measure sudomotor function?

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Autonomic Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Sudomotor function testing by electrochemical skin conductance: does it really measure sudomotor function?
Published in
Clinical Autonomic Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10286-018-0540-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharika Rajan, Marta Campagnolo, Brian Callaghan, Christopher H. Gibbons

Abstract

Electrochemical skin conductance (ESC) is a non-invasive test of sweat function developed as a potential marker of small fiber neuropathy. Here we systematically review the evolution of this device and the data obtained from studies of ESC across different diseases. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE, and Google Scholar were searched through to February 2018. The search strategy included the following terms: "electrochemical skin conductance," "EZSCAN," and "Sudoscan." The data values provided by each paper were extracted, where available, and input into tabular and figure data for direct comparison. Thirty-seven studies were included this systematic review. ESC did not change by age or gender, and there was significant variability in ESC values between diseases, some of which exceeded control values. Longitudinal studies of disease demonstrated changes in ESC that were not biologically plausible. Of the 37 studies assessed, 25 received support from the device manufacturer. The extracted data did not agree with other published normative values. Prior studies do not support claims that ESC is a measure of small fiber sensory function or autonomic function. Although many papers report significant differences in ESC values between disease and control subjects, the compiled data assessed in this review raises questions about the technique. Many of the published results violate biologic plausibility. A single funding source with a vested interest in the study outcomes has supported most of the studies. Normative values are inconsistent across publications, and large combined data sets do not support a high sensitivity and specificity. Finally, there is insufficient evidence supporting the claim that Sudoscan tests sudomotor or sensory nerve fiber function.

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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 18%
Researcher 4 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Engineering 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 12 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 10 December 2020.
All research outputs
#6,379,463
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Autonomic Research
#234
of 788 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,021
of 329,256 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Autonomic Research
#6
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 788 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 329,256 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 65% 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 75% of its contemporaries.