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 |
Placebo and nocebo effects in the neurological practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1590/0004-282x20140180 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caroline Bittar, Osvaldo J.M. Nascimento |
| Abstract |
Knowledge of placebo and nocebo effects is essential to identify their influence on the results in clinical practice and clinical trials, and thereby properly interpret their results. It is known that the gold standard of clinical trials research is the double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical study. The objective of this review is to distinguish specific from non-specific effects, so that the presence of positive effects in the group that received placebo (placebo effect) and the presence of adverse effects in the group receiving placebo (nocebo effect) lead to confounding in interpreting the results. Placebo and nocebo effects have been considered in neurological diseases such as depression, pain, headache, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy. As placebo and nocebo effects are also present in clinical practice, the purpose of this review is to draw attention to their influence on neurological practice, calling attention to the development of measures that can minimize them. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 25% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 13% |
| Hungary | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 88% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 70 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 20% |
| Researcher | 11 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 28% |
| Psychology | 13 | 18% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 18 October 2017.
All research outputs
#2,558,285
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria
#48
of 1,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,085
of 359,538 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria
#1
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,369 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 359,538 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.