↓ Skip to main content

BMJ

Ocular neuropathic pain

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of Ophthalmology, May 2015
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 (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
18 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
Title
Ocular neuropathic pain
Published in
British Journal of Ophthalmology, May 2015
DOI 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-306280
Pubmed ID
Authors

Perry Rosenthal, David Borsook

Abstract

As the biological alarm of impending or actual tissue damage, pain is essential for our survival. However, when it is initiated and/or sustained by dysfunctional elements in the nociceptive system, it is itself a disease known as neuropathic pain. While the critical nociceptive system provides a number of protective functions, it is unique in its central role of monitoring, preserving and restoring the optical tear film in the face of evaporative attrition without which our vision would be non-functional. Meeting this existential need resulted in the evolution of the highly complex, powerful and sensitive dry eye alarm system integrated in the peripheral and central trigeminal sensory network. The clinical consequences of corneal damage to these nociceptive pathways are determined by the type and location of its pathological elements and can range from the spectrum known as dry eye disease to the centalised oculofacial neuropathic pain syndrome characterised by a striking disparity between the high intensity of symptoms and paucity of external signs. These changes parallel those observed in somatic neuropathic pain. When seen through the neuroscience lens, diseases responsible for inadequately explained chronic eye pain (including those described as dry eye) can take on new meanings that may clarify long-standing enigmas and point to new approaches for developing preventive, symptomatic and disease-modifying interventions for these currently refractory disorders.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 177 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 13%
Other 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Student > Postgraduate 14 8%
Student > Master 14 8%
Other 51 28%
Unknown 47 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 6%
Neuroscience 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 55 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 48. 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 10 May 2021.
All research outputs
#865,872
of 25,390,692 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of Ophthalmology
#105
of 6,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,355
of 278,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of Ophthalmology
#2
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,390,692 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 6,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 278,805 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 77 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 98% of its contemporaries.