↓ Skip to main content

Treatment for idiopathic and hereditary neuralgic amyotrophy (brachial neuritis)

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
82 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Treatment for idiopathic and hereditary neuralgic amyotrophy (brachial neuritis)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2009
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006976.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nens van Alfen, Baziel GM van Engelen, Richard AC Hughes

Abstract

Neuralgic amyotrophy (also know as Parsonage-Turner syndrome or brachial plexus neuritis) is a distinct peripheral nervous system disorder characterised by episodes (attacks) of extreme neuropathic pain and rapid multifocal weakness and atrophy in the upper limbs. Neuralgic amyotrophy has both an idiopathic and hereditary form, with similar clinical symptoms but generally an earlier age of onset and more episodes in the hereditary form. The current hypothesis is that the episodes are caused by an immune-mediated response to the brachial plexus. Recovery is slow, in months to years, and many patients are left with residual pain and decreased exercise tolerance of the affected limb(s). Anecdotal evidence suggests that corticosteroids may relieve pain or help improve functional recovery.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 2 2%
South Africa 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 114 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 16%
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 33 27%
Unknown 16 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Unspecified 3 2%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 21 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 08 September 2019.
All research outputs
#3,532,870
of 14,460,564 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,162
of 10,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,605
of 128,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#37
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,460,564 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 128,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.