↓ Skip to main content

The efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation on migraine: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Headache and Pain, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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 efficacy of transcranial magnetic stimulation on migraine: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trails
Published in
The Journal of Headache and Pain, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s10194-017-0792-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lihuan Lan, Xiaoni Zhang, Xiangpen Li, Xiaoming Rong, Ying Peng

Abstract

As a non-invasive therapy, whether transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is effective on migraine. This article was aimed to assess the efficacy of TMS on migraine based on randomized controlled trails (RCTs). We searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library electronic databases for published studies which compared TMS group with sham group, conducted a meta-analysis of all RCTs. Five studies, consisting of 313 migraine patients, were identified. Single-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation is effective for the acute treatment of migraine with aura after the first attack (p = 0.02). And, the efficacy of TMS on chronic migraine was not significant (OR 2.93; 95% CI 0.71-12.15; p = 0.14). TMS is effective for migraine based on the studies included in the article.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 16%
Researcher 19 15%
Student > Master 13 10%
Other 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 37 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 19%
Neuroscience 25 19%
Psychology 9 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 46 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 November 2021.
All research outputs
#6,212,119
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#575
of 1,417 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,871
of 319,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#15
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
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 59% 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 319,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 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 51% of its contemporaries.