↓ Skip to main content

Association of anxiety with intracortical inhibition and descending pain modulation in chronic myofascial pain syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neuroscience, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
147 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
Association of anxiety with intracortical inhibition and descending pain modulation in chronic myofascial pain syndrome
Published in
BMC Neuroscience, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2202-15-42
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liliane Pinto Vidor, Iraci LS Torres, Liciane Fernandes Medeiros, Jairo Alberto Dussán-Sarria, Letizzia Dall’Agnol, Alicia Deitos, Aline Brietzke, Gabriela Laste, Joanna R Rozisky, Felipe Fregni, Wolnei Caumo

Abstract

This study aimed to answer three questions related to chronic myofascial pain syndrome (MPS): 1) Is the motor cortex excitability, as assessed by transcranial magnetic stimulation parameters (TMS), related to state-trait anxiety? 2) Does anxiety modulate corticospinal excitability changes after evoked pain by Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST)? 3) Does the state-trait anxiety predict the response to pain evoked by QST if simultaneously receiving a heterotopic stimulus [Conditional Pain Modulation (CPM)]? We included females with chronic MPS (n = 47) and healthy controls (n = 11), aged 19 to 65 years. Motor cortex excitability was assessed by TMS, and anxiety was assessed based on the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. The disability related to pain (DRP) was assessed by the Profile of Chronic Pain scale for the Brazilian population (B:PCP:S), and the psychophysical pain measurements were measured by the QST and CPM.

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 147 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 3 2%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 143 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 22%
Student > Bachelor 25 17%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 23 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 29%
Neuroscience 20 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 6%
Psychology 9 6%
Other 16 11%
Unknown 32 22%

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 27 March 2014.
All research outputs
#14,367,639
of 21,365,584 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neuroscience
#690
of 1,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,895
of 206,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neuroscience
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,365,584 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 1,211 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 206,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them