↓ Skip to main content

Central poststroke pain: somatosensory abnormalities and the presence of associated myofascial pain syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 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
Central poststroke pain: somatosensory abnormalities and the presence of associated myofascial pain syndrome
Published in
BMC Neurology, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2377-12-89
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rogério Adas Ayres de Oliveira, Daniel Ciampi de Andrade, André Guelman Gomes Machado, Manoel Jacobsen Teixeira

Abstract

Central post-stroke pain (CPSP) is a neuropathic pain syndrome associated with somatosensory abnormalities due to central nervous system lesion following a cerebrovascular insult. Post-stroke pain (PSP) refers to a broader range of clinical conditions leading to pain after stroke, but not restricted to CPSP, including other types of pain such as myofascial pain syndrome (MPS), painful shoulder, lumbar and dorsal pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and spasticity-related pain. Despite its recognition as part of the general PSP diagnostic possibilities, the prevalence of MPS has never been characterized in patients with CPSP patients. We performed a cross-sectional standardized clinical and radiological evaluation of patients with definite CPSP in order to assess the presence of other non-neuropathic pain syndromes, and in particular, the role of myofascial pain syndrome in these patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 120 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 20%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 9 7%
Researcher 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 33 27%
Unknown 28 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 38%
Neuroscience 11 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 35 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 12 September 2012.
All research outputs
#13,367,517
of 22,678,224 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#1,059
of 2,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,955
of 168,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#29
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,678,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,416 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 168,561 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.