The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Clinical practice guidelines for the management of neuropathic pain: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Anesthesiology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12871-015-0150-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yunkun Deng, Lei Luo, Yuhuai Hu, Kaiyun Fang, Jin Liu |
| Abstract |
The management of neuropathic pain (NP) is challenging despite it being the recent focus of extensive research. A number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of NP have been published worldwide over the past 2 decades. This study aimed to assess the quality of these CPGs. We performed a systematic review of published CPGs for the management of NP. Three reviewers independently assessed the quality of the CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) instrument, and recommendations of CPGs were also appraised. A total of 16 CPGs were included. Thirteen CPGs were developed using an evidence-based approach, and the remaining CPGs were produced by consensus panels. None of CPGs obtained a score greater than 50 % in all six AGREE II instrument domains mainly owing to poor performance in the "Applicability" domain. The highest score of the CPGs was achieved in "Clarity and Presentation" domain, followed by "Scope and Purpose" and "Editorial Independence" domains, and the lowest scores were found the in "Applicability" domain. The majority of the CPG recommendations on the management of patients with NP were relatively consistent, especially regarding the recommendation of stepwise treatment with medication. Greater efforts are needed not only to improve the quality of development and presentation of the CPGs, but also to provide more efficacy evidence for the management of patients with NP. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 8 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 70% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 30% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 176 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 22 | 12% |
| Other | 19 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 9% |
| Researcher | 16 | 9% |
| Other | 45 | 25% |
| Unknown | 42 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 71 | 40% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 16 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 5% |
| Psychology | 6 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 49 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 13 August 2016.
All research outputs
#6,650,221
of 26,365,186 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#219
of 1,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,897
of 313,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,365,186 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,760 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 313,698 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.