↓ Skip to main content

Analysis of induced electrical currents from magnetic field coupling inside implantable neurostimulator leads

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Analysis of induced electrical currents from magnetic field coupling inside implantable neurostimulator leads
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1475-925x-10-94
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oxana S Pantchenko, Seth J Seidman, Joshua W Guag

Abstract

Over the last decade, the number of neurostimulator systems implanted in patients has been rapidly growing. Nearly 50, 000 neurostimulators are implanted worldwide annually. The most common type of implantable neurostimulators is indicated for pain relief. At the same time, commercial use of other electromagnetic technologies is expanding, making electromagnetic interference (EMI) of neurostimulator function an issue of concern. Typically reported sources of neurostimulator EMI include security systems, metal detectors and wireless equipment. When near such sources, patients with implanted neurostimulators have reported adverse events such as shock, pain, and increased stimulation. In recent in vitro studies, radio frequency identification (RFID) technology has been shown to inhibit the stimulation pulse of an implantable neurostimulator system during low frequency exposure at close distances. This could potentially be due to induced electrical currents inside the implantable neurostimulator leads that are caused by magnetic field coupling from the low frequency identification system.

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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 22%
Researcher 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Professor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 10 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 22%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 7 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 24 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,081,037
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#62
of 867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,316
of 151,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#3
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. 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 151,956 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 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.