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 |
Intensive short-term vasodilation effect in the pain area of sciatica patients - case study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Research Notes, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1756-0500-7-620 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elżbieta Skorupska, Michał Rychlik, Wiktoria Pawelec, Agata Bednarek, Włodzimierz Samborski |
| Abstract |
Varied and complicated etiology of low back pain radiating distally to the extremities is still causing disagreement and controversy around the issue of its diagnosis and treatment. Most clinicians believe that the source of that pain is generally radicular. While some of them postulate the clinical significance of the sacroiliac joint syndrome, others demonstrate that almost one in five people with back pain experience symptoms indicative of the neuropathic pain component. To date, neuropathic involvement has not been completely understood, and different mechanisms are thought to play an important role. It has been established that muscle pain (myofascial pain) e.g. active trigger points from the gluteus minimus, can mimic pain similar to sciatica, especially in the chronic stage. This paper describes patients presenting with radicular sciatica (case one and two) and sciatica-like symptoms (case three). For the first time, intensive short-term vasodilation in the pain area following needle infiltration of the gluteus minimus trigger point was recorded. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 29% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 14% |
| Sports and Recreations | 3 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 29% |
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 27 September 2014.
All research outputs
#18,403,994
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from BMC Research Notes
#3,015
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,251
of 238,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Research Notes
#103
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 238,645 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.