↓ Skip to main content

Neurophysiological assessment of spinal cord injuries in dogs using somatosensory and motor evoked potentials

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 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
Neurophysiological assessment of spinal cord injuries in dogs using somatosensory and motor evoked potentials
Published in
Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13028-017-0305-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Claudia Campos Mello Inglez de Souza, Ricardo José Rodriguez Ferreira, Geni Cristina Fonseca Patricio, Julia Maria Matera

Abstract

Somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) and motor evoked potentials (MEPs) are non-invasive neurophysiological tests that reflect the functional integrity of sensory and motor pathways. Despite their extensive use and description in human medicine, reports in veterinary medicine are scarce. SSEPs are obtained via peripheral stimulation of sensory or mixed nerves; stimulation induces spinal and cortical responses, which are recorded when sensory pathways integrity is preserved. MEPs can be obtained via transcranial electrical or magnetic stimulation; in this case, thoracic and pelvic limb muscle responses are captured if motor pathways are preserved. This review describes principles, methodology and clinical applicability of SSEPs and MEPs in companion animal medicine. Potential interferences of anesthesia with SSEP and MEP recording are also discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 18%
Other 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Professor 2 5%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 12 31%
Neuroscience 7 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,793,576
of 11,364,689 outputs
Outputs from Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
#166
of 444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,837
of 267,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica
#6
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,364,689 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 444 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 267,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 57% of its contemporaries.