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 |
Neuromodulation of chronic headaches: position statement from the European Headache Federation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Headache and Pain, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1129-2377-14-86 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paolo Martelletti, Rigmor H Jensen, Andrea Antal, Roberto Arcioni, Filippo Brighina, Marina de Tommaso, Angelo Franzini, Denys Fontaine, Max Heiland, Tim P Jürgens, Massimo Leone, Delphine Magis, Koen Paemeleire, Stefano Palmisani, Walter Paulus, Arne May |
| Abstract |
The medical treatment of patients with chronic primary headache syndromes (chronic migraine, chronic tension-type headache, chronic cluster headache, hemicrania continua) is challenging as serious side effects frequently complicate the course of medical treatment and some patients may be even medically intractable. When a definitive lack of responsiveness to conservative treatments is ascertained and medication overuse headache is excluded, neuromodulation options can be considered in selected cases.Here, the various invasive and non-invasive approaches, such as hypothalamic deep brain stimulation, occipital nerve stimulation, stimulation of sphenopalatine ganglion, cervical spinal cord stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, transcranial direct current stimulation, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation are extensively published although proper RCT-based evidence is limited. The European Headache Federation herewith provides a consensus statement on the clinical use of neuromodulation in headache, based on theoretical background, clinical data, and side effect of each method. This international consensus further gives recommendations for future studies on these new approaches.In spite of a growing field of stimulation devices in headaches treatment, further controlled studies to validate, strengthen and disseminate the use of neurostimulation are clearly warranted. Consequently, until these data are available any neurostimulation device should only be used in patients with medically intractable syndromes from tertiary headache centers either as part of a valid study or have shown to be effective in such controlled studies with an acceptable side effect profile. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 29% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| Hungary | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 258 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 254 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 40 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 12% |
| Other | 29 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 9% |
| Other | 53 | 21% |
| Unknown | 56 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 100 | 39% |
| Neuroscience | 36 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 5% |
| Psychology | 12 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 4% |
| Other | 20 | 8% |
| Unknown | 66 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 27 April 2020.
All research outputs
#4,736,417
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#502
of 1,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,544
of 214,240 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#4
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 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 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 64% 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 214,240 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 69% of its contemporaries.