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 |
Ceasing Intrathecal Therapy in Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: An Invitation to Shift from Biomedical Focus to Active Management
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, November 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0049124 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chris Hayes, Meredith S. Jordan, Fiona J. Hodson, Linda Ritchard |
| Abstract |
To report long term experience (1997-2009) of intrathecal (IT) therapy for chronic non-cancer pain in the context of our team's increasing emphasis on active management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 12 | 16% |
| Unknown | 15 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 37% |
| Psychology | 9 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 30% |
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 08 November 2012.
All research outputs
#13,371,661
of 22,685,926 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#106,502
of 193,650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,674
of 183,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#2,364
of 4,904 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,685,926 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 183,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,904 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.