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.
Twitter Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Neuropathic orofacial pain: Cannabinoids as a therapeutic avenue
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.biocel.2014.08.007 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Patrick McDonough, Joseph P. McKenna, Christine McCreary, Eric J. Downer |
| Abstract |
Neuropathic orofacial pain (NOP) exists in several forms including pathologies such as burning mouth syndrome (BMS), persistent idiopathic facial pain (PIFP), trigeminal neuralgia (TN) and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). BMS and PIFP are classically diagnosed by excluding other facial pain syndromes. TN and PHN are most often diagnosed based on a typical history and presenting pain characteristics. The pathophysiology of some of these conditions is still unclear and hence treatment options tend to vary and include a wide variety of treatments including cognitive behaviour therapy, anti-depressants, anti-convulsants and opioids; however such treatments often have limited efficacy with a great amount of inter-patient variability and poorly tolerated side effects. Analgesia is one the principal therapeutic targets of the cannabinoid system and many studies have demonstrated the efficacy of cannabinoid compounds in the treatment of neuropathic pain. This review will investigate the potential use of cannabinoids in the treatment of symptoms associated with NOP. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 6 | 33% |
| Canada | 6 | 33% |
| United States | 2 | 11% |
| Australia | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 3 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 11 | 61% |
| Scientists | 3 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 137 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 16% |
| Researcher | 22 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 9 | 6% |
| Other | 26 | 19% |
| Unknown | 33 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 39% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 6% |
| Psychology | 7 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 25 | 18% |
| Unknown | 36 | 26% |
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 03 November 2018.
All research outputs
#2,356,318
of 24,072,790 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology
#84
of 2,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,495
of 257,954 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Biochemistry & Cell Biology
#3
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,072,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,463 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 257,954 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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 96% of its contemporaries.