↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Optimizing prophylactic treatment of migraine: Subtypes and patient matching

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Optimizing prophylactic treatment of migraine: Subtypes and patient matching
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2008
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s3983
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michel Dib

Abstract

Advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of migraine have resulted in important breakthroughs in treatment. For example, understanding of the role of serotonin in the cerebrovascular circulation has led to the development of triptans for the acute relief of migraine headaches, and the identification of cortical spreading depression as an early central event associated wih migraine has brought renewed interest in antiepileptic drugs for migraine prophylaxis. However, migraine still remains inadequately treated. Indeed, it is apparent that migraine is not a single disease but rather a syndrome that can manifest itself in a variety of pathological conditions. The consequences of this may be that treatment needs to be matched to particular patients. Clinical research needs to be devoted to identifying which sort of patients benefit best from which treatments, particularly in the field of prophylaxis. We propose four patterns of precipitating factors (adrenergic, serotoninergic, menstrual, and muscular) which may be used to structure migraine prophylaxis. Finally, little is known about long-term outcome in treated migraine. It is possible that appropriate early prophylaxis may modify the long-term course of the disease and avoid late complications.

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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 3%
Poland 1 3%
Unknown 33 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 29%
Student > Master 7 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 23%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 7 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 December 2021.
All research outputs
#14,256,694
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#588
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,755
of 101,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 101,351 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.