| Title |
Management of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: Guideline Guidance or Jungle?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Diabetes Reports, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11892-012-0287-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Vincenza Spallone |
| Abstract |
The treatment of painful diabetic polyneuropathy (PDPN) remains a major challenge. A number of reasons have made the guidelines on PDPN management of particular interest, including its high prevalence, health and socioeconomic impact, interdisciplinary nature and the need for updated evidence-based information to refine patient-tailored treatment by weighing up the risks of each treatment against its proven benefits, as well as optimizing the use of all available resources. The various guidelines on the management of neuropathic pain developed so far contain some differences in their work methodology and results. Some variations in the recommendations are to be expected but could be disorienting and confusing for stakeholders. In this review, a critical evaluation of the more recent guidelines on the management of PDPN is provided together with highlights on points of agreement and disagreement as well as insights into their clinical aspects. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 11% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Other | 11 | 19% |
| Unknown | 12 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 39% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 14 | 25% |
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 25 May 2012.
All research outputs
#18,306,425
of 22,665,794 outputs
Outputs from Current Diabetes Reports
#771
of 1,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,479
of 164,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Diabetes Reports
#14
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,665,794 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 164,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.