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 |
Cervicogenic headache: too important to be left un-diagnosed
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Headache and Pain, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1129-2377-16-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Torbjørn A Fredriksen, Fabio Antonaci, Ottar Sjaastad |
| Abstract |
A comparison has been made between the cervicogenic headache criteria in the new IHS classification of headaches (3rd edition- beta version) and The Cervicogenic Headache International Study Group's (GHISG) criteria from 1998. In a more recent version, the CHISG criteria consist of 7 different items. While "core cases" of cervicogenic headache (CEH) usually fulfill all 7 criteria, the IHS classification - 3rd edition beta version- fulfills only 3 criteria. Although the new three beta version represents an improvement from the previous one, it does not quite seem to live up to the expectations for a diagnostic system for routine, clinical use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 40 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 15 | 38% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 5% |
| France | 2 | 5% |
| Dominican Republic | 1 | 3% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Peru | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 11 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 36 | 90% |
| Scientists | 3 | 8% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 187 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 1% |
| Unknown | 185 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 44 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 14% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 29 | 16% |
| Unknown | 44 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 55 | 29% |
| Sports and Recreations | 7 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 3% |
| Unknown | 48 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 11 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,177,858
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#113
of 1,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,014
of 356,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#2
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 356,780 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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 90% of its contemporaries.