↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Non‐pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
28 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
289 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
728 Mendeley
Title
Non‐pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011142.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikki van Dessel, Madelon den Boeft, Johannes C van der Wouden, Maria Kleinstäuber, Stephanie S Leone, Berend Terluin, Mattijs E Numans, Henriëtte E van der Horst, Harm van Marwijk

Abstract

Medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) are physical symptoms for which no adequate medical explanation can be found after proper examination. The presence of MUPS is the key feature of conditions known as 'somatoform disorders'. Various psychological and physical therapies have been developed to treat somatoform disorders and MUPS. Although there are several reviews on non-pharmacological interventions for somatoform disorders and MUPS, a complete overview of the whole spectrum is missing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 728 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 718 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 129 18%
Researcher 93 13%
Student > Bachelor 90 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 77 11%
Student > Postgraduate 50 7%
Other 144 20%
Unknown 145 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 224 31%
Psychology 147 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 65 9%
Neuroscience 25 3%
Social Sciences 25 3%
Other 66 9%
Unknown 176 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 13 April 2022.
All research outputs
#836,241
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,609
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,164
of 273,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 273,900 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.