↓ Skip to main content

Pain hypersensitivity in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a quantitative sensory testing study

Overview of attention for article published in Pediatric Rheumatology, September 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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
153 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
Pain hypersensitivity in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a quantitative sensory testing study
Published in
Pediatric Rheumatology, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/1546-0096-12-39
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laura Cornelissen, Carolina Donado, Joseph Kim, Laura Chiel, David Zurakowski, Deirdre E Logan, Petra Meier, Navil F Sethna, Markus Blankenburg, Boris Zernikow, Robert P Sundel, Charles B Berde

Abstract

Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (JIA) is the most common cause of non-infectious joint inflammation in children. Synovial inflammation results in pain, swelling and stiffness. Animal and adult human studies indicate that localized joint-associated inflammation may produce generalized changes in pain sensitivity. The aim was to characterize pain sensitivity in children with JIA to mechanical and thermal stimulus modalities using quantitative sensory testing (QST) at an affected inflamed joint, and compare to children in clinical remission. Generalized hypersensitivity was evaluated by comparing QST measures at the thenar eminence between JIA and healthy control children.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 153 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 150 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 21%
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 9%
Other 13 8%
Researcher 13 8%
Other 30 20%
Unknown 27 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 37 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 04 December 2020.
All research outputs
#2,200,426
of 22,763,032 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Rheumatology
#64
of 693 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,575
of 238,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Rheumatology
#2
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,763,032 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 693 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 238,865 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.