↓ Skip to main content

Differential diagnosis "non-cardiac chest pain".

Overview of attention for article published in Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
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.
Title
Differential diagnosis "non-cardiac chest pain".
Published in
Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, July 2015
DOI 10.1055/s-0041-103305
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Frieling

Abstract

Non cardiac chest pain (NCCP) are recurrent angina pectoris like pain without evidence of coronary heart diesease in conventional diagnostic evaluation. The prevalence of NCCP is up to 70 % and may be detected in this order at all levels of the medical health care system (general practitioner, emergency department, chest pain unit, coronary care). Reduction of quality of life in NCCP is comparable, partially even higher compared to cardiac chest pain. Reasons for psychological strain are symptom recurrence in app. 50 %, nonspecific diagnosis with resulting uncertainty and insufficient integration of other medical disciplines in diagnostic work-up. Managing of patients with NCCP has to be interdisciplinary because non cardiac causes of chest pain may be found frequently. This are musculosceletal in app. 40 %, gastrointestinal in app. 20 %, psychiatric in app. 10 % and pulmonary and mediastinal diseases in app. 5 % of cases. Also gastroenterological expertise is required because here gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in app. 60 %, hypercontractile esophageal motility disorders with nutcracker, jackhammer esophagus or distal esophageal spasmus or achalasia in app. 20 % and other esophageal alterations (e. g. infectious esophageal inflammation, drug-induced ulcer, rings, webs, eosinophilic esophagits) in app. 30 % of cases may be detected as cause of chest pain may. This implicates that regular interdisciplinary round wards and interdisciplinary management of chest pain units are mandatory.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 22%
Student > Postgraduate 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 56%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 October 2015.
All research outputs
#22,760,732
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift
#1,170
of 1,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,114
of 275,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift
#17
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,395 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 275,154 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.