↓ Skip to main content

Assistive technologies for pain management in people with amputation: a literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Military Medical Research, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
189 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
Assistive technologies for pain management in people with amputation: a literature review
Published in
Military Medical Research, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40779-018-0151-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kamiar Ghoseiri, Mostafa Allami, Mohammad Reza Soroush, Mohammad Yusuf Rastkhadiv

Abstract

The prevalence of limb amputation is increasing globally as a devastating experience that can physically and psychologically affect the lifestyle of a person. The residual limb pain and phantom limb pain are common disabling sequelae after amputation surgery. Assistive devices/technologies can be used to relieve pain in people with amputation. The existing assistive devices/technologies for pain management in people with amputation include electrical nerve block devices/technologies, TENS units, elastomeric pumps and catheters, residual limb covers, laser systems, myoelectric prostheses and virtual reality systems, etc. There is a great potential to design, fabricate, and manufacture some portable, wireless, smart, and thin devices/technologies to stimulate the spinal cord or peripheral nerves by electrical, thermal, mechanical, and pharmaceutical stimulus. Although some preliminary efforts have been done, more attention must be paid by researchers, clinicians, designers, engineers, and manufacturers to the post amputation pain and its treatment methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 189 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 16%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Master 18 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 8%
Other 15 8%
Other 27 14%
Unknown 64 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 10%
Engineering 13 7%
Psychology 10 5%
Computer Science 9 5%
Other 22 12%
Unknown 73 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 30 January 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Military Medical Research
#276
of 443 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,552
of 450,227 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Military Medical Research
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 443 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 450,227 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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.