↓ 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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
47 X users
facebook
16 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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

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

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 47 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Researcher 3 4%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 23 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 23 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 19 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,258,713
of 25,563,770 outputs
Outputs from Current Neuropharmacology
#67
of 943 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,660
of 277,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Neuropharmacology
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,563,770 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 943 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. 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 277,161 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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.