↓ Skip to main content

Evidence that dry eye represents a chronic overlapping pain condition

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Pain, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
80 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.
Article details
Title
Evidence that dry eye represents a chronic overlapping pain condition
Published in
Molecular Pain, September 2017
DOI 10.1177/1744806917729306
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Recent data suggest that corneal somatosensory dysfunction may be the underlying cause of severe dry eye symptoms in the absence of ocular surface pathology seen in a subset of patients diagnosed with “dry eye syndrome.” This subset of patients tends to demonstrate a unique constellation of symptoms that are persistent, more severe, and generally respond poorly to current dry eye therapies targeting inadequate or dysfunctional tears. A growing body of literature suggests that symptoms in these patients may be better characterized as neuropathic ocular pain rather than dry eye. In these patients, dry eye symptoms are often associated with numerous comorbid pain conditions and evidence of central pain processing abnormalities, where eye pain is just one of multiple overlapping peripheral manifestations. In this review, we discuss the concept and potential mechanisms of chronic overlapping pain conditions as well as evidence for considering neuropathic ocular pain as one of these overlapping pain conditions.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Researcher 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 5%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 33 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 36 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 31 July 2020.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Pain
#331
of 669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,926
of 323,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Pain
#8
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 323,170 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.