| Title |
Cost-effectiveness of minimal interventional procedures for chronic mechanical low back pain: design of four randomised controlled trials with an economic evaluation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2474-13-260 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Esther T Maas, Johan NS Juch, J George Groeneweg, Raymond WJG Ostelo, Bart W Koes, Arianne P Verhagen, Merel van Raamt, Frank Wille, Frank JPM Huygen, Maurits W van Tulder |
| Abstract |
Minimal interventional procedures are frequently applied in patients with mechanical low back pain which is defined as pain presumably resulting from single sources: facet, disc, sacroiliac joint or a combination of these. Usually, these minimal interventional procedures are an integral part of a multidisciplinary pain programme. A recent systematic review issued by the Dutch Health Insurance Council showed that the effectiveness of these procedures for the total group of patients with chronic low back pain is yet unclear and cost-effectiveness unknown. The aim of the study is to evaluate whether a multidisciplinary pain programme with minimal interventional procedures is cost-effective compared to the multidisciplinary pain programme alone for patients with chronic mechanical low back pain who did not respond to conservative primary care and were referred to a pain clinic. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 201 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 30 | 15% |
| Researcher | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 8% |
| Other | 39 | 19% |
| Unknown | 61 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 69 | 34% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 10% |
| Sports and Recreations | 10 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 9 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 27 | 13% |
| Unknown | 62 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 December 2012.
All research outputs
#15,260,208
of 22,691,736 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,444
of 4,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#181,196
of 280,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#63
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,691,736 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,027 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 280,171 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.