↓ Skip to main content

Single-blind randomised controlled trial of chemonucleolysis and manipulation in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, June 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
120 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
167 Mendeley
Title
Single-blind randomised controlled trial of chemonucleolysis and manipulation in the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation
Published in
European Spine Journal, June 2000
DOI 10.1007/s005869900113
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. K. Burton, K. Malcolm Tillotson, John Cleary

Abstract

This single-blind randomised clinical trial compared osteopathic manipulative treatment with chemonucleolysis (used as a control of known efficacy) for symptomatic lumbar disc herniation. Forty patients with sciatica due to this diagnosis (confirmed by imaging) were treated either by chemonucleolysis or manipulation. Outcomes (leg pain, back pain and self-reported disability) were measured at 2 weeks, 6 weeks and 12 months. The mean values for all outcomes improved in both groups. By 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in outcome between the treatments, but manipulation produced a statistically significant greater improvement for back pain and disability in the first few weeks. A similar number from both groups required additional orthopaedic intervention; there were no serious complications. Crude cost analysis suggested an overall financial advantage from manipulation. Because osteopathic manipulation produced a 12-month outcome that was equivalent to chemonucleolysis, it can be considered as an option for the treatment of symptomatic lumbar disc herniation, at least in the absence of clear indications for surgery. Further study into the value of manipulation at a more acute stage is warranted.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 163 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Student > Master 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 43 26%
Unknown 31 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 17%
Sports and Recreations 12 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 35 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 September 2023.
All research outputs
#7,355,930
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#859
of 5,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,202
of 39,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,258 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 39,990 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 68% of its contemporaries.
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 4 of them.