↓ Skip to main content

Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: Misconceptions and Future Research Directions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, August 2016
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
8 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Readers on

mendeley
93 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
Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: Misconceptions and Future Research Directions
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, August 2016
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2016.00122
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thorsten Rudroff, John H. Kindred, Nathaniel B. Ketelhut

Abstract

Fatigue is one of the most disabling side effects in people with multiple sclerosis. While this fact is well known, there has been a remarkable lack of progress in determining the pathophysiological mechanisms behind fatigue and the establishment of effective treatments. The main barrier has been the lack of a unified definition of fatigue that can be objectively tested with validated experimental models. In this "perspective article" we propose the use of the following model and definition of fatigue: the decrease in physical and/or mental performance that results from changes in central, psychological, and/or peripheral factors. These changes depend on the task being performed, the environmental conditions it is performed in, and the physical and mental capacity of the individual. Our definition and model of fatigue outlines specific causes of fatigue and how it affects task performance. We also outline the strengths and weaknesses of commonly used measures of fatigue and suggest, based on our model and definition, new research strategies, which should include multiple measures. These studies should be mechanistic with validated experimental models to determine changes in central, psychological, and/or peripheral factors that explain fatigue. The proposed new research strategies may lead to the identification of the origins of MS related fatigue and the development of new, more effective treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 27 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 16%
Psychology 9 10%
Sports and Recreations 8 9%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 31 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 12 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,201,698
of 22,881,154 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#375
of 11,802 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,019
of 366,906 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#2
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,154 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,802 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 366,906 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 96% of its contemporaries.