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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Depression of home cage wheel running: a reliable and clinically relevant method to assess migraine pain in rats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Headache and Pain, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s10194-017-0721-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ram Kandasamy, Andrea T. Lee, Michael M. Morgan |
| Abstract |
The development of new anti-migraine treatments is limited by the difficulty inassessing migraine pain in laboratory animals. Depression of activity is one of the few diagnostic criteria formigraine that can be mimicked in rats. The goal of the present study was to test the hypothesis thatdepression of home cage wheel running is a reliable and clinically relevant method to assess migraine painin rats. Adult female rats were implanted with a cannula to inject allyl isothiocyanate (AITC) onto the dura to induce migraine pain, as has been shown before. Rats recovered from implantation surgery for 8 days in cages containing a running wheel. Home cage wheel running was recorded 23 h a day. AITC and the migraine medication sumatriptan were administered in the hour prior to onset of the dark phase. Administration of AITC caused a concentration-dependent decrease in wheel running that lasted 3 h. The duration and magnitude of AITC-induced depression of wheel running was consistent following three repeated injections spaced 48 h apart. Administration of sumatriptan attenuated AITC-induced depressionof wheel running when a large dose (1 mg/kg) was administered immediately following AITC administration. Wheel running patterns did not change when sumatriptan was given to naïve rats. These data indicate that home cage wheel running is a sensitive, reliable, and clinically relevant method to assess migraine pain in the rat. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 19% |
| Researcher | 6 | 14% |
| Professor | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 15 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 February 2017.
All research outputs
#16,069,695
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#1,057
of 1,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,193
of 425,751 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#20
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 425,751 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.