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 |
Characterizing Acupuncture Stimuli Using Brain Imaging with fMRI - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0032960 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wenjing Huang, Daniel Pach, Vitaly Napadow, Kyungmo Park, Xiangyu Long, Jane Neumann, Yumi Maeda, Till Nierhaus, Fanrong Liang, Claudia M. Witt |
| Abstract |
The mechanisms of action underlying acupuncture, including acupuncture point specificity, are not well understood. In the previous decade, an increasing number of studies have applied fMRI to investigate brain response to acupuncture stimulation. Our aim was to provide a systematic overview of acupuncture fMRI research considering the following aspects: 1) differences between verum and sham acupuncture, 2) differences due to various methods of acupuncture manipulation, 3) differences between patients and healthy volunteers, 4) differences between different acupuncture points. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 27% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 9% |
| Ireland | 2 | 9% |
| Canada | 1 | 5% |
| Belgium | 1 | 5% |
| Australia | 1 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 5% |
| Egypt | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 86% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 9% |
| Scientists | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 209 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 34 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 50 | 23% |
| Unknown | 44 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 73 | 34% |
| Psychology | 21 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 18 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 27 | 12% |
| Unknown | 53 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 August 2022.
All research outputs
#804,086
of 25,408,670 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#10,660
of 221,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,764
of 173,797 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#152
of 3,684 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,408,670 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 221,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. 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 173,797 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,684 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.