↓ Skip to main content

Perception of venipuncture pain in children suffering from chronic diseases

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Research Notes, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 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
Perception of venipuncture pain in children suffering from chronic diseases
Published in
BMC Research Notes, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/1756-0500-7-735
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sofia Bisogni, Chiara Dini, Nicole Olivini, Daniele Ciofi, Francesca Giusti, Simona Caprilli, José Rafael Gonzalez Lopez, Filippo Festini

Abstract

Venipuncture pain in children results from a variety of co-factors which increase the intensity of the nociceptive stimulus. Among them, anticipatory anxiety plays an important role. Children with chronic diseases undergo invasive procedures and venipuncture more often than other children. Some healthcare professionals still believe that children who are repeatedly exposed to painful procedures, such as children with chronic diseases, gradually increase their pain tolerance and that, as a result, they have a higher pain threshold than children with no chronic diseases. The purpose of this study was to assess whether a difference exists in the perception of venipuncture pain between children with chronic diseases and children with no previous health problems nor experience of venipuncture.

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 %
Denmark 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Other 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 23%
Psychology 5 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 10 26%

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 08 November 2014.
All research outputs
#14,312,548
of 21,321,698 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#2,207
of 4,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,640
of 251,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#222
of 406 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,321,698 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 4,121 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 251,914 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 406 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.