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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Descending pain modulation in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS): a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-015-0162-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rosemary J. Chakiath, Philip J. Siddall, John E. Kellow, Julia M. Hush, Mike P. Jones, Anna Marcuzzi, Paul J. Wrigley |
| Abstract |
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder. While abdominal pain is a dominant symptom of IBS, many sufferers also report widespread hypersensitivity and present with other chronic pain conditions. The presence of widespread hypersensitivity and extra-intestinal pain conditions suggests central nervous dysfunction. While central nervous system dysfunction may involve the spinal cord (central sensitisation) and brain, this review will focus on one brain mechanism, descending pain modulation. We will conduct a comprehensive search for the articles indexed in the databases Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycINFO and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial (CENTRAL) from their inception to August 2015, that report on any aspect of descending pain modulation in irritable bowel syndrome. Two independent reviewers will screen studies for eligibility, assess risk of bias and extract relevant data. Results will be tabulated and, if possible, a meta-analysis will be carried out. The systematic review outlined in this protocol aims to summarise current knowledge regarding descending pain modulation in IBS. PROSPERO CRD42015024284. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 13% |
| Researcher | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 16 | 29% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 5 | 9% |
| Psychology | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 September 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,732
of 2,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#228,375
of 394,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#35
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 394,826 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.