↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Measuring the impact of trigeminal neuralgia pain: the Penn Facial Pain Scale-Revised

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 Mendeley
Title
Measuring the impact of trigeminal neuralgia pain: the Penn Facial Pain Scale-Revised
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, June 2018
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s152958
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tara Symonds, Jason A Randall, Deborah L Hoffman, Joanna M Zakrzewska, William Gehringer, John YK Lee

Abstract

The Penn Facial Pain Scale (Penn-FPS) was originally developed as a supplemental module to the Brief Pain Inventory Pain Interference Index (BPI-PII) in order to fully assess the impact of trigeminal neuralgia (TN) pain on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The current objective is to create and establish the content validity of a new stand-alone version of the measure, the Penn-FPS-Revised (Penn-FPS-R). Twenty participants (15 USA and 5 UK) with confirmed TN engaged in concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews. These semi-structured interviews allowed participants to spontaneously describe the ways in which TN impacts on HRQoL and report on the extent to which the Penn-FPS and BPI-PII measure concepts are most relevant to them. Participants were also asked to report on the suitability of the instructions, recall period, and response options. Concept elicitation revealed nine themes involving TN restrictions on daily activities and HRQoL, including: "talking," "self-care," "eating," "eating hard foods/chewing foods," "daily activities," "activities with temperature change," "touching," "mood," and "relationships." Cognitive debriefing confirmed that all of the Penn-FPS concepts and some of the BPI-PII concepts ("mood," "general activities," and "relations with others") were relevant, although some items required edits to better capture individuals' experiences. The impact of temperature and/or weather on activities was also identified as an important concept that is not captured by the Penn-FPS or BPI-PII. Participants confirmed the acceptability of recall period, instructions, and response options. Results from the interviews were applied to create the Penn-FPS-R, a new brief outcome measure that assesses the impacts of TN most important to patients. The Penn-FPS-R is a new 12-item HRQoL outcome measure with content validity that can be used to assess and monitor the impact of TN treatment interventions in both clinical practice and research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 2 5%
Student > Master 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 20 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 20 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 10 April 2019.
All research outputs
#5,585,777
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#543
of 1,771 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,419
of 330,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#18
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,771 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 330,319 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.