↓ Skip to main content

Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) for cancer pain in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
74 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) for cancer pain in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006276.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adam Hurlow, Michael I Bennett, Karen A Robb, Mark I Johnson, Karen H Simpson, Stephen G Oxberry

Abstract

Cancer-related pain is complex and multi-dimensional but the mainstay of cancer pain management has predominantly used a biomedical approach. There is a need for non-pharmacological and innovative approaches. Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation (TENS) may have a role in pain management but the effectiveness of TENS is currently unknown. This is an update of the original review published in Issue 3, 2008.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 2%
Portugal 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 108 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 17%
Student > Bachelor 18 16%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 12%
Other 13 12%
Other 35 31%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 18%
Unspecified 14 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 20 April 2018.
All research outputs
#962,651
of 12,883,415 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,065
of 10,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,610
of 119,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,883,415 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,469 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 119,380 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.