↓ Skip to main content

A pilot registry of unexplained fatiguing illnesses and chronic fatigue syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 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.
Title
A pilot registry of unexplained fatiguing illnesses and chronic fatigue syndrome
Published in
BMC Research Notes, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-6-309
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dana J Brimmer, Elizabeth Maloney, Rebecca Devlin, James F Jones, Roumiana Boneva, Caryn Nagler, Lisa LeRoy, Scott Royal, Hao Tian, Jin-Mann S Lin, Jennifer Kasten, Elizabeth R Unger

Abstract

Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) has no diagnostic clinical signs or biomarkers, so diagnosis requires ruling out conditions with similar signs and symptoms. We conducted a pilot registry of unexplained fatiguing illnesses and CFS to determine the feasibility of establishing and operating a registry and implementing an education outreach initiative. The pilot registry was conducted in Bibb County, Georgia. Patient referrals were obtained from healthcare providers who were identified by using various education outreach initiatives. These referrals were later supplemented with self-referrals by members of a local CFS support group. All patients meeting referral criteria were invited to participate in a screening interview to determine eligibility. If patients met registry criteria, they were invited to a one-day clinic for physical and laboratory evaluations. We classified patients based on the 1994 case definition.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 20%
Student > Master 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Student > Bachelor 1 7%
Other 4 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Unspecified 1 7%

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 13 July 2015.
All research outputs
#973,059
of 12,390,921 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#142
of 2,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,781
of 151,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#4
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,390,921 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,772 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 151,207 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 50 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 92% of its contemporaries.