↓ 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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 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 122 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 115 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 16%
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Other 33 27%
Unknown 16 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 23 19%

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
#3,991,860
of 15,798,956 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,417
of 11,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,029
of 133,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#37
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,798,956 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 11,292 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.4. 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 133,146 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 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 51% of its contemporaries.