↓ Skip to main content

Injection therapy and denervation procedures for chronic low-back pain: a systematic review

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
Title
Injection therapy and denervation procedures for chronic low-back pain: a systematic review
Published in
European Spine Journal, April 2010
DOI 10.1007/s00586-010-1411-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas Henschke, Ton Kuijpers, Sidney M. Rubinstein, Marienke van Middelkoop, Raymond Ostelo, Arianne Verhagen, Bart W. Koes, Maurits W. van Tulder

Abstract

Injection therapy and denervation procedures are commonly used in the management of chronic low-back pain (LBP) despite uncertainty regarding their effectiveness and safety. To provide an evaluation of the current evidence associated with the use of these procedures, a systematic review was performed. Existing systematic reviews were screened, and the Cochrane Back Review Group trial register was searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they recruited adults with chronic LBP, evaluated the use of injection therapy or denervation procedures and measured at least one clinically relevant outcome (such as pain or functional status). Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility and risk of bias (RoB). A meta-analysis was performed with clinically homogeneous studies, and the GRADE approach was used to determine the quality of evidence. In total, 27 RCTs were included, 14 on injection therapy and 13 on denervation procedures. 18 (66%) of the studies were determined to have a low RoB. Because of clinical heterogeneity, only two comparisons could be pooled. Overall, there is only low to very low quality evidence to support the use of injection therapy and denervation procedures over placebo or other treatments for patients with chronic LBP. However, it cannot be ruled out that in carefully selected patients, some injection therapy or denervation procedures may be of benefit.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 98 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 19%
Other 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 28 27%
Unknown 15 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 14 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 February 2017.
All research outputs
#4,581,926
of 22,710,079 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#522
of 4,603 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,583
of 95,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#7
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,710,079 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,603 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 95,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.