↓ Skip to main content

Quantitative methods for somatosensory evaluation in atypical odontalgia

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Oral Research, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Quantitative methods for somatosensory evaluation in atypical odontalgia
Published in
Brazilian Oral Research, January 2015
DOI 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2015.vol29.0020
Pubmed ID
Authors

André Luís Porporatti, Yuri Martins Costa, Juliana Stuginski-Barbosa, Leonardo Rigoldi Bonjardim, Paulo César Rodrigues Conti, Peter Svensson

Abstract

A systematic review was conducted to identify reliable somatosensory evaluation methods for atypical odontalgia (AO) patients. The computerized search included the main databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). The studies included used the following quantitative sensory testing (QST) methods: mechanical detection threshold (MDT), mechanical pain threshold (MPT) (pinprick), pressure pain threshold (PPT), dynamic mechanical allodynia with a cotton swab (DMA1) or a brush (DMA2), warm detection threshold (WDT), cold detection threshold (CDT), heat pain threshold (HPT), cold pain detection (CPT), and/or wind-up ratio (WUR). The publications meeting the inclusion criteria revealed that only mechanical allodynia tests (DMA1, DMA2, and WUR) were significantly higher and pain threshold tests to heat stimulation (HPT) were significantly lower in the affected side, compared with the contralateral side, in AO patients; however, for MDT, MPT, PPT, CDT, and WDT, the results were not significant. These data support the presence of central sensitization features, such as allodynia and temporal summation. In contrast, considerable inconsistencies between studies were found when AO patients were compared with healthy subjects. In clinical settings, the most reliable evaluation method for AO in patients with persistent idiopathic facial pain would be intraindividual assessments using HPT or mechanical allodynia tests.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Chile 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 52 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 24%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Researcher 4 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 12 22%
Unknown 9 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Psychology 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 10 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 22 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,960,693
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Oral Research
#57
of 509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,136
of 359,331 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Oral Research
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 509 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 359,331 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.