↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Skin, fascias, and scars: symptoms and systemic connections

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, December 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#2 of 397)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
113 tweeters
facebook
378 Facebook pages
googleplus
8 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 Mendeley
Title
Skin, fascias, and scars: symptoms and systemic connections
Published in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, December 2013
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s52870
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno Bordoni, Emiliano Zanier

Abstract

Every element or cell in the human body produces substances that communicate and respond in an autocrine or paracrine mode, consequently affecting organs and structures that are seemingly far from each other. The same also applies to the skin. In fact, when the integrity of the skin has been altered, or when its healing process is disturbed, it becomes a source of symptoms that are not merely cutaneous. The skin is an organ, and similar to any other structure, it has different functions in addition to connections with the central and peripheral nervous system. This article examines pathological responses produced by scars, analyzing definitions and differences. At the same time, it considers the subcutaneous fascias, as this connective structure is altered when there is a discontinuous cutaneous surface. The consequence is an ample symptomatology, which is not limited to the body area where the scar is located, such as a postural or trigeminal disorder.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 113 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 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 193 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 43 22%
Student > Master 35 18%
Other 27 14%
Researcher 17 9%
Student > Postgraduate 15 8%
Other 44 23%
Unknown 14 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 8%
Sports and Recreations 13 7%
Neuroscience 8 4%
Other 11 6%
Unknown 18 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 206. 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 25 July 2020.
All research outputs
#86,371
of 15,714,677 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#2
of 397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,199
of 266,355 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,714,677 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 266,355 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.