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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Medication overuse headache: a critical review of end points in recent follow-up studies
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Headache and Pain, May 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10194-010-0221-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Knut Hagen, Rigmor Jensen, Magne Geir Bøe, Lars Jacob Stovner |
| Abstract |
No guidelines for performing and presenting the results of studies on patients with medication overuse headache (MOH) exist. The aim of this study was to review long-term outcome measures in follow-up studies published in 2006 or later. We included MOH studies with >6 months duration presenting a minimum of one predefined end point. In total, nine studies were identified. The 1,589 MOH patients (22% men) had an overall mean frequency of 25.3 headache days/month at baseline. Headache days/month at the end of follow-up was reported in six studies (mean 13.8 days/month). The decrease was more pronounced for studies including patients with migraine only (-14.6 days/month) compared to studies with the original diagnoses of migraine and tension-type headache (-9.2 days/month). Six studies reported relapse rate (mean of 26%) and/or responder rate (mean of 28%). Medication days/month and change in headache index at the end of follow-up were reported in only one and two of nine studies, respectively. The present review demonstrated a lack of uniform end points used in recently published follow-up studies. Guidelines for presenting follow-up data on MOH are needed and we propose end points such as headache days/month, medication days/month, relapse rate and responder rate defined as ≥50% reduction of headache frequency and/or headache index from baseline. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 29 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 30% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 47% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 8 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 13 September 2012.
All research outputs
#7,866,480
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#708
of 1,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,484
of 97,420 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 97,420 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.