↓ Skip to main content

Female reproductive tract pain: targets, challenges, and outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2014
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Female reproductive tract pain: targets, challenges, and outcomes
Published in
Frontiers in Pharmacology, January 2014
DOI 10.3389/fphar.2014.00017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phillip Jobling, Kate O’Hara, Susan Hua

Abstract

Pain from the female reproductive tract (FRT) is a significant clinical problem for which there are few effective therapies. The complex neuroanatomy of pelvic organs not only makes diagnosis of pelvic pain disorders difficult but represents a challenge to development of targeted therapies. A number of potential therapeutic targets have been identified on sensory neurons supplying the FRT but our knowledge on the basic neurophysiology of these neurons is limited compared with other viscera. Until this is addressed we can only guess if the new experimental therapies proposed for somatic, gastrointestinal, or bladder pain will translate to the FRT. Once suitable therapeutic targets become clear, the next challenge is drug delivery. The FRT represents a promising system for topical drug delivery that could be tailored to act locally or systemically depending on formulation. Development of these therapies and their delivery systems will need to be done in concert with more robust in vivo and in vitro models of FRT pain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 20%
Researcher 8 14%
Other 6 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Student > Master 4 7%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 18 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 34%
Engineering 7 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 18 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 29 January 2024.
All research outputs
#4,841,529
of 25,506,250 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#2,379
of 19,866 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,907
of 319,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#9
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,506,250 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,866 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 319,815 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.