↓ Skip to main content

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis:Symptoms and Biomarkers.

Overview of attention for article published in Current Neuropharmacology, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 483)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
42 tweeters
facebook
13 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 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
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis:Symptoms and Biomarkers.
Published in
Current Neuropharmacology, September 2015
DOI 10.2174/1570159x13666150928105725
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason, Leonard A, Zinn, Marcie L, Zinn, Mark A, Leonard A. Jasona, Marcie L. Zinn, Mark A. Zinn, Leonard A. Jason

Abstract

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) continues to cause significant morbiditiy worldwide with an estimated one million cases in the United States. Hurdles to establishing consensus to achieve accurate evaluation of patients with ME continue, fueled by poor agreement about case definitions, slow progress in development of standardized diagnostic approaches, and issues surrounding research priorities. Because there are other medical problems, such as early MS and Parkinson's Disease, which have some similar clinical presentations, it is critical to accurately diagnose ME to make a differential diagnosis. In this article, we explore and summarize advances in the physiological and neurological approaches to understanding, diagnosing, and treating ME. We identify key areas and approaches to eludicate the core and secondary symptom clusters in ME so as to provide some practical suggestions in evaluation of ME for clinicians and researchers.This review, therefore, represents a synthesis of key discussions in the literature, andhas important implications for a better understanding of ME, its biological markers, and diagnostic criteria. There is a clear need for more longitudinal studies in this area with larger data sets, which correct for multiple testing.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Master 3 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Librarian 2 4%
Researcher 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 34 63%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Psychology 6 11%
Computer Science 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 34 63%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 15 June 2019.
All research outputs
#486,499
of 13,328,138 outputs
Outputs from Current Neuropharmacology
#21
of 483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,555
of 248,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Neuropharmacology
#1
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,328,138 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 483 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 248,597 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 95% of its contemporaries.