↓ Skip to main content

Sensory Nerves

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 1: Neuropathic pain: a clinical perspective.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
235 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
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.
Chapter title
Neuropathic pain: a clinical perspective.
Chapter number 1
Book title
Sensory Nerves
Published in
Handbook of experimental pharmacology, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/978-3-540-79090-7_1
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-54-079089-1, 978-3-54-079090-7
Authors

Ralf Baron, Baron R

Abstract

Neuropathic pain syndromes, i.e., pain after a lesion or disease of the peripheral or central nervous system, are clinically characterized by spontaneous pain (ongoing, paroxysms) and evoked types of pain (hyperalgesia, allodynia). A variety of distinct pathophysiological mechanisms in the peripheral and central nervous system operate in concert: In some patients the nerve lesion triggers molecular changes in nociceptive neurons that become abnormally sensitive and develop pathological spontaneous activity (upregulation of sodium channels and receptors, e.g., vanilloid TRPV1 receptors, menthol-sensitive TRPM8 receptors, or alpha-receptors). These phenomena may lead to spontaneous pain, shooting pain sensations, as well as heat hyperalgesia, cold hyperalgesia, and sympathetically maintained pain. Spontaneous activity in damaged large nonnociceptive A-fibers may lead to paresthesias. All these changes may also occur in uninjured neurons driven by substances released by adjacent dying cells and should receive more attention in the future. The hyperactivity in nociceptors in turn induces secondary changes (hyperexcitability) in processing neurons in the spinal cord and brain. This central sensitization causes input from mechanoreceptive A-fibers to be perceived as pain (mechanical allodynia). Neuroplastic changes in the central descending pain modulatory systems (inhibitory or facilitatory) may lead to further hyperexcitability. Neuropathic pain represents a major neurological problem and treatment of patients with such pain has been largely neglected by neurologists in the past. The medical management of neuropathic pain consists of five main classes of oral medication (antidepressants with reuptake blocking effect, anticonvulsants with sodium-blocking action, anticonvulsants with calcium-modulating actions, tramadol, and opioids) and several categories of topical medications for patients with cutaneous allodynia and hyperalgesia (capsaicin and local anesthetics). In many cases an early combination of compounds effecting different mechanisms is useful. At present existing trials only provide general pain relief values for specific causes, which in part may explain the failure to obtain complete pain relief in neuropathic pain conditions. In general, the treatment of neuropathic pain is still unsatisfactorily. Therefore, a new hypothetical concept was proposed in which pain is analyzed on the basis of underlying mechanisms. The increased knowledge of pain-generating mechanisms and their translation into symptoms and signs may in the future allow a dissection of the mechanisms that operate in each patient. If a systematic clinical examination of the neuropathic pain patient and a precise phenotypic characterization is combined with a selection of drugs acting against those particular mechanisms, it should ultimately be possible to design optimal treatments for the individual patient.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 228 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 14%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Bachelor 24 10%
Other 15 6%
Other 51 22%
Unknown 49 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 14%
Neuroscience 11 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 3%
Other 43 18%
Unknown 54 23%
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 25 February 2023.
All research outputs
#7,451,425
of 23,427,600 outputs
Outputs from Handbook of experimental pharmacology
#227
of 650 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,927
of 403,765 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Handbook of experimental pharmacology
#19
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,427,600 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 650 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 403,765 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 68% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.