| Title |
Low myelinated nerve-fibre density may lead to symptoms associated with nerve entrapment in vibration-induced neuropathy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1745-6673-9-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lars B Dahlin, Helena Sandén, Erik Dahlin, Malin Zimmerman, Niels Thomsen, Anders Björkman |
| Abstract |
Prolonged exposure to hand-held vibrating tools may cause a hand-arm vibration syndrome (HAVS), sometimes with individual susceptibility. The neurological symptoms seen in HAVS are similar to symptoms seen in patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) and there is a strong relationship between CTS and the use of vibrating tools. Vibration exposure to the hand is known to induce demyelination of nerve fibres and to reduce the density of myelinated nerve fibres in the nerve trunks. In view of current knowledge regarding the clinical effects of low nerve-fibre density in patients with neuropathies of varying aetiologies, such as diabetes, and that such a low density may lead to nerve entrapment symptoms, a reduction in myelinated nerve fibres may be a key factor behind the symptoms also seen in patients with HAVS and CTS. Furthermore, a reduced nerve-fibre density may result in a changed afferent signal pattern, resulting in turn in alterations in the brain, further prompting the symptoms seen in patients with HAVS and CTS. We conclude that a low nerve-fibre density lead to symptoms associated with nerve entrapment, such as CTS, in some patients with HAVS. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 14 March 2014.
All research outputs
#8,474,037
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#149
of 419 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,710
of 235,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 419 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 235,508 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.