↓ Skip to main content

A randomised, patient-assessor blinded, sham-controlled trial of external non-invasive peripheral nerve stimulation for chronic neuropathic pain following peripheral nerve injury (EN-PENS trial)…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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 randomised, patient-assessor blinded, sham-controlled trial of external non-invasive peripheral nerve stimulation for chronic neuropathic pain following peripheral nerve injury (EN-PENS trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1709-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Selina Johnson, Roberta Richey, Emily Holmes, Dyfrig Hughes, Andreas Goebel

Abstract

Eight percent of people in the UK are estimated to have persistent (chronic) neuropathic pain, and for many there is no effective treatment. Medications are the most common first-line treatment but often have limited benefit or adverse events. Surgical treatments, such as spinal cord stimulation, are then often considered. External non-invasive peripheral nerve stimulation (EN-PENS) is a form of electrical stimulation that involves placing a pen-shaped electrode onto the skin, which can be easily self-administered by patients. Observational studies suggest that EN-PENS may relieve pain for people with localised neuropathic pain; however, there is currently no evidence from controlled trials to confirm the efficacy and confidently determine the effect size for patients with longstanding neuropathic pain. EN-PENS is a single-site, blinded, randomised controlled parallel-group superiority add-on trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio, designed to evaluate the efficacy of treatment versus control treatment in 76 patients with longstanding neuropathic pain following peripheral nerve injury. Patients with moderate to -severe neuropathic pain following peripheral nerve injury will be randomised to receive either the active or control treatment, followed by an optional treatment extension or treatment switch to the alternative treatment arm. The primary outcome is average 24-h pain intensity recorded on an 11-point (0-10) numerical rating scale, averaged over the last 7 days of treatment. Study results will be used to inform potential treatment efficacy and cost-effectiveness of EN-PENS for this population group. ISRCTN53432663 . Registered on 7 July 2016.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 16%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 24 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 16%
Neuroscience 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 24 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 06 April 2021.
All research outputs
#8,783,469
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#13
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,873
of 423,634 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#15
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one scored the same or higher as 32 of them.
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 423,634 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.