| Title |
Does nuclear tissue infected with bacteria following disc herniations lead to Modic changes in the adjacent vertebrae?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Spine Journal, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00586-013-2674-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hanne B. Albert, Peter Lambert, Jess Rollason, Joan Solgaard Sorensen, Tony Worthington, Mogens Bach Pedersen, Hanne Schack Nørgaard, Ann Vernallis, Frederik Busch, Claus Manniche, Tom Elliott |
| Abstract |
To investigate the prevalence of infected herniated nucleus material in lumbar disc herniations and to determine if patients with an anaerobic infected disc are more likely to develop Modic change (MC) (bone oedema) in the adjacent vertebrae after the disc herniation. MCs (bone oedema) in vertebrae are observed in 6 % of the general population and in 35-40 % of people with low back pain. These changes are strongly associated with low back pain. There are probably a mechanical cause and an infective cause that causes MC. Several studies on nuclear tissue from herniated discs have demonstrated the presence of low virulent anaerobic microorganisms, predominantly Propionibacterium acnes, in 7-53 % of patients. At the time of a herniation these low virulent anaerobic bacteria may enter the disc and give rise to an insidious infection. Local inflammation in the adjacent bone may be a secondary effect due to cytokine and propionic acid production. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 | 7 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 5 | 9% |
| Canada | 4 | 8% |
| New Zealand | 4 | 8% |
| Spain | 3 | 6% |
| Ireland | 2 | 4% |
| France | 2 | 4% |
| Iraq | 1 | 2% |
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 8% |
| Unknown | 20 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 43 | 81% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 11% |
| Scientists | 4 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 307 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 2% |
| United States | 6 | 2% |
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Denmark | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 5 | 2% |
| Unknown | 279 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 55 | 18% |
| Other | 47 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 36 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 21 | 7% |
| Other | 84 | 27% |
| Unknown | 34 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 171 | 56% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 19 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 37 | 12% |
| Unknown | 52 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 101. 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 19 December 2023.
All research outputs
#423,535
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#31
of 5,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,209
of 297,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#2
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,323 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 297,063 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 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 94% of its contemporaries.