↓ Skip to main content

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of neuropathic pain: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 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
Clinical practice guidelines for the management of neuropathic pain: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12871-015-0150-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yunkun Deng, Lei Luo, Yuhuai Hu, Kaiyun Fang, Jin Liu

Abstract

The management of neuropathic pain (NP) is challenging despite it being the recent focus of extensive research. A number of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of NP have been published worldwide over the past 2 decades. This study aimed to assess the quality of these CPGs. We performed a systematic review of published CPGs for the management of NP. Three reviewers independently assessed the quality of the CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE-II) instrument, and recommendations of CPGs were also appraised. A total of 16 CPGs were included. Thirteen CPGs were developed using an evidence-based approach, and the remaining CPGs were produced by consensus panels. None of CPGs obtained a score greater than 50 % in all six AGREE II instrument domains mainly owing to poor performance in the "Applicability" domain. The highest score of the CPGs was achieved in "Clarity and Presentation" domain, followed by "Scope and Purpose" and "Editorial Independence" domains, and the lowest scores were found the in "Applicability" domain. The majority of the CPG recommendations on the management of patients with NP were relatively consistent, especially regarding the recommendation of stepwise treatment with medication. Greater efforts are needed not only to improve the quality of development and presentation of the CPGs, but also to provide more efficacy evidence for the management of patients with NP.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 1%
Russia 1 <1%
Unknown 162 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 12%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Other 17 10%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Other 43 26%
Unknown 35 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Neuroscience 7 4%
Psychology 6 4%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 41 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 13 August 2016.
All research outputs
#5,613,614
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#180
of 1,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,751
of 298,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,497 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
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 298,014 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.