↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Fibromyalgia: from pathophysiology to therapy

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Rheumatology, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
63 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
114 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Fibromyalgia: from pathophysiology to therapy
Published in
Nature Reviews Rheumatology, July 2011
DOI 10.1038/nrrheum.2011.98
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias Schmidt-Wilcke, Daniel J. Clauw

Abstract

Individuals with fibromyalgia generally experience chronic widespread pain, which can be accompanied by further symptoms including fatigue, sleep disturbances, cognitive dysfunction, anxiety and depressive episodes. As the recognition and diagnosis of fibromyalgia has improved, the availability of therapeutic options for patients has increased. Furthermore, research into the neurobiological mechanisms that contribute to the chronic pain and concomitant symptoms experienced by patients with fibromyalgia has advanced our understanding of this debilitating disorder. In this Review, we aim to provide an overview of existing pathophysiological concepts. The roles of biological and psychological stress, genetic factors, and pain and sensory processing in the pathophysiology of fibromyalgia and related conditions are discussed. In addition, pharmacological treatments, including monoamine modulators, calcium channel modulators and γ-aminobutyric acid modulators, as well as nonpharmacological treatment options are considered.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
Spain 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 196 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 33 16%
Researcher 31 15%
Student > Master 30 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 13%
Student > Postgraduate 20 10%
Other 52 25%
Unknown 16 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 45%
Psychology 21 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 7%
Neuroscience 14 7%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 25 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 January 2020.
All research outputs
#484,184
of 14,158,819 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Rheumatology
#93
of 1,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,484
of 86,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Rheumatology
#1
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,158,819 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,685 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 86,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.