↓ Skip to main content

The neural mobilization technique modulates the expression of endogenous opioids in the periaqueductal gray and improves muscle strength and mobility in rats with neuropathic pain

Overview of attention for article published in Behavioral and Brain Functions, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 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
The neural mobilization technique modulates the expression of endogenous opioids in the periaqueductal gray and improves muscle strength and mobility in rats with neuropathic pain
Published in
Behavioral and Brain Functions, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1744-9081-10-19
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabio Martinez Santos, Leandro Henrique Grecco, Marcelo Gomes Pereira, Mara Evany Oliveira, Priscila Abreu Rocha, Joyce Teixeira Silva, Daniel Oliveira Martins, Elen Haruka Miyabara, Marucia Chacur

Abstract

The neural mobilization (NM) technique is a noninvasive method that has been proven to be clinically effective in reducing pain; however, the molecular mechanisms involved remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to analyze whether NM alters the expression of the mu-opioid receptor (MOR), the delta-opioid receptor (DOR) and the Kappa-opioid receptor (KOR) in the periaqueductal gray (PAG) and improves locomotion and muscle force after chronic constriction injury (CCI) in rats.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 168 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 24 14%
Student > Postgraduate 19 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 7%
Other 37 22%
Unknown 40 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 27%
Neuroscience 15 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Sports and Recreations 4 2%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 44 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 03 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,831,548
of 25,546,214 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#60
of 416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,653
of 241,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,546,214 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 416 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 241,941 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.