| Title |
Increased theta band EEG power in sickle cell disease patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s145581 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michelle Case, Sina Shirinpour, Huishi Zhang, Yvonne H Datta, Stephen C Nelson, Karim T Sadak, Kalpna Gupta, Bin He |
| Abstract |
Pain is a major issue in the care of patients with sickle cell disease (SCD). The mechanisms behind pain and the best way to treat it are not well understood. We studied how electroencephalography (EEG) is altered in SCD patients. We recruited 20 SCD patients and compared their resting state EEG to that of 14 healthy controls. EEG power was found across frequency bands using Welch's method. Electrophysiological source imaging was assessed for each frequency band using the eLORETA algorithm. SCD patients had increased theta power and decreased beta2 power compared to controls. Source localization revealed that areas of greater theta band activity were in areas related to pain processing. Imaging parameters were significantly correlated to emergency department visits, which indicate disease severity and chronic pain intensity. The present results support the pain mechanism referred to as thalamocortical dysrhythmia. This mechanism causes increased theta power in patients. Our findings show that EEG can be used to quantitatively evaluate differences between controls and SCD patients. Our results show the potential of EEG to differentiate between different levels of pain in an unbiased setting, where specific frequency bands could be used as biomarkers for chronic pain. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 9 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 17% |
| Engineering | 4 | 13% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,486,175
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,161
of 1,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#265,513
of 437,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#38
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 437,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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.