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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Pathophysiology and medical treatment of pain in fibrous dysplasia of bone
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, May 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1750-1172-7-s1-s3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Roland D Chapurlat, Deborah Gensburger, Juan M Jimenez-Andrade, Joseph R Ghilardi, Marilyn Kelly, Patrick Mantyh |
| Abstract |
One of the most common complications of fibrous dysplasia of bone (FD) is bone pain. Usual pain killers are often of inadequate efficacy to control this bone pain. The mechanism of bone pain in FD remains uncertain, but by analogy with bone tumors one may consider that ectopic sprouting and formation of neuroma-like structures by sensory and sympathetic nerve fibers also occur in the dysplastic skeleton. Bone pain has been reported in up to 81% of adults and 49% of children. It affects predominantly the lower limbs and the spine. The degree of pain is highly variable and adults reports more pain than children. Bisphosphonates have been shown to reduce bone pain in uncontrolled studies. Their influence on bone strength remains unknown. In a randomized trial testing alendronate, bone pain was not significantly improved. Another trial assessing the effect of risedronate is ongoing. Possible future therapies include tocilizumab, denosumab and drugs targeting nerve growth factor and its receptor TrkA. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 87 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 21 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 44% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 24 | 27% |
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 19 December 2014.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#2,289
of 3,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,419
of 177,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#22
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,105 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 177,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.