↓ Skip to main content

The clinical features of the piriformis syndrome: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
144 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
358 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The clinical features of the piriformis syndrome: a systematic review
Published in
European Spine Journal, July 2010
DOI 10.1007/s00586-010-1504-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kevork Hopayian, Fujian Song, Ricardo Riera, Sidha Sambandan

Abstract

Piriformis syndrome, sciatica caused by compression of the sciatic nerve by the piriformis muscle, has been described for over 70 years; yet, it remains controversial. The literature consists mainly of case series and narrative reviews. The objectives of the study were: first, to make the best use of existing evidence to estimate the frequencies of clinical features in patients reported to have PS; second, to identify future research questions. A systematic review was conducted of any study type that reported extractable data relevant to diagnosis. The search included all studies up to 1 March 2008 in four databases: AMED, CINAHL, Embase and Medline. Screening, data extraction and analysis were all performed independently by two reviewers. A total of 55 studies were included: 51 individual and 3 aggregated data studies, and 1 combined study. The most common features found were: buttock pain, external tenderness over the greater sciatic notch, aggravation of the pain through sitting and augmentation of the pain with manoeuvres that increase piriformis muscle tension. Future research could start with comparing the frequencies of these features in sciatica patients with and without disc herniation or spinal stenosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 358 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%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 346 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 60 17%
Student > Bachelor 45 13%
Other 37 10%
Student > Postgraduate 30 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 7%
Other 76 21%
Unknown 84 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 157 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 50 14%
Sports and Recreations 16 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 4%
Neuroscience 5 1%
Other 19 5%
Unknown 96 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 30 April 2023.
All research outputs
#1,852,522
of 25,195,876 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#155
of 5,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,172
of 100,817 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#7
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,195,876 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,207 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 100,817 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.