↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Characterizing neuropathic pain profiles: enriching interpretation of painDETECT

Overview of attention for article published in Patient related outcome measures, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
Title
Characterizing neuropathic pain profiles: enriching interpretation of painDETECT
Published in
Patient related outcome measures, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/prom.s101892
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph C Cappelleri, Vijaya Koduru, E Jay Bienen, Alesia Sadosky

Abstract

To psychometrically evaluate painDETECT, a patient-reported screening questionnaire for neuropathic pain (NeP), for discriminating among sensory pain symptoms (burning, tingling/prickling, light touching, sudden pain attacks/electric shock-type pain, cold/heat, numbness, and slight pressure). The seven-item version of painDETECT provides an overall score that targets only sensory symptoms, while the nine-item version adds responses on two items to the overall score, covering pain course pattern and pain radiation. Both versions have relevance in terms of characterizing broad NeP. The nine- and seven-item versions of painDETECT were administered to subjects with confirmed NeP across six conditions identified during office visits to US community-based physicians. Responses on the sensory symptom items were dichotomized into "at least moderate" (ie, moderate, strongly, very strongly) relative to the combined other responses (never, hardly noticed, slightly). Logistic regression of dichotomized variables on the total painDETECT score provided probabilities of experiencing each symptom across the range of painDETECT scores. Both painDETECT versions discriminated among the symptoms with similar probabilities across the score ranges. Using these data, the probability of moderately experiencing each pain sensory item was estimated for a particular score, providing a pain profile. Additionally, the likelihood of experiencing each sensation was determined for a discrete increase in score, ie, the odds of at least a moderate sensation of burning (versus less than a moderate sensation) was 1.29 for a 1-point increase, 3.52 for a 5-point increase, and 12.42 for every 10-point increase in the nine-item painDETECT score. painDETECT differentiates pain profiles across the range of scores such that, for a particular score, the probability of experiencing at least a moderate sensation of each symptom was determined and compared. These results can help characterize NeP symptomatology, enrich interpretation of painDETECT scores, and provide a basis for individualizing NeP management.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 16 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 25%
Student > Bachelor 3 19%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 3 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 38%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 31%
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 07 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,913,921
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Patient related outcome measures
#75
of 196 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,837
of 367,255 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient related outcome measures
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 196 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 367,255 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 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them