| Title |
Minimal adverse effects profile following implantation of periauricular percutaneous electrical nerve field stimulators: a retrospective cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medical Devices : Evidence and Research, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/mder.s107426 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Arthur Roberts, Alec Sithole, Marcos Sedghi, Charles A Walker, Theresa M Quinn |
| Abstract |
The periauricular percutaneous implantation of the Neuro-Stim System™ family of devices EAD, MFS, and BRIDGE is a procedure involving the use of a non-opiate, neuromodulation analgesic for relieving acute and chronic pain. It has been approved as a minimal-risk procedure by multiple governmental and institutional facilities. This retrospective report of findings will help quantify the incidence of clinically observed bleeding, localized dermatitis, and infections at the implantation sites of the electrode/needle arrays, dermatitis at the site of the generator, and patient syncope. A total of 1,207 devices, each producing up to 16 percutaneous punctures, for a total of 19,312 punctures were monitored for adverse effects, based on retrospective chart audits conducted at six clinical facilities over a 1-year period. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 18% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Researcher | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 14 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 18% |
| Engineering | 4 | 14% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 14 | 50% |
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 07 May 2018.
All research outputs
#14,972,904
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#158
of 314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,337
of 318,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Devices : Evidence and Research
#4
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 318,026 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.