↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic and therapeutic errors in trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias and hemicrania continua: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Headache and Pain, February 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Diagnostic and therapeutic errors in trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias and hemicrania continua: a systematic review
Published in
The Journal of Headache and Pain, February 2013
DOI 10.1186/1129-2377-14-14
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michele Viana, Cristina Tassorelli, Marta Allena, Giuseppe Nappi, Ottar Sjaastad, Fabio Antonaci

Abstract

Trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (TACs) and hemicrania continua (HC) are relatively rare but clinically rather well-defined primary headaches. Despite the existence of clear-cut diagnostic criteria (The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 2nd edition - ICHD-II) and several therapeutic guidelines, errors in workup and treatment of these conditions are frequent in clinical practice. We set out to review all available published data on mismanagement of TACs and HC patients in order to understand and avoid its causes. The search strategy identified 22 published studies. The most frequent errors described in the management of patients with TACs and HC are: referral to wrong type of specialist, diagnostic delay, misdiagnosis, and the use of treatments without overt indication. Migraine with and without aura, trigeminal neuralgia, sinus infection, dental pain and temporomandibular dysfunction are the disorders most frequently overdiagnosed. Even when the clinical picture is clear-cut, TACs and HC are frequently not recognized and/or mistaken for other disorders, not only by general physicians, dentists and ENT surgeons, but also by neurologists and headache specialists. This seems to be due to limited knowledge of the specific characteristics and variants of these disorders, and it results in the unnecessary prescription of ineffective and sometimes invasive treatments which may have negative consequences for patients. Greater knowledge of and education about these disorders, among both primary care physicians and headache specialists, might contribute to improving the quality of life of TACs and HC patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 104 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Other 9 8%
Other 22 20%
Unknown 24 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 47%
Neuroscience 12 11%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 27 25%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,439,761
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#597
of 1,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,246
of 194,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#10
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,417 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 194,739 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 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 73% of its contemporaries.