↓ Skip to main content

The real risks of steroid injection for plantar fasciitis, with a review of conservative therapies

Overview of attention for article published in Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, September 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#34 of 537)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 Mendeley
Title
The real risks of steroid injection for plantar fasciitis, with a review of conservative therapies
Published in
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, September 2008
DOI 10.1007/s12178-008-9036-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yusuf Ziya Tatli, Sameer Kapasi

Abstract

This article presents a review of conservative therapies for plantar fasciitis pain reduction with a discussion of steroid therapy risks. The therapies reviewed include orthoses, stretching, extracorporeal shockwave, BTX-A, and corticosteroid injection/iontophoresis. These modes were included based on the availability of double blinded randomized controlled trials. We noted the following findings. Orthoses, regardless of type, can improve pain levels. Plantar stretching shows limited short-term benefit (1 month), but can reflect significant long-term improvement (10 months). Extracorporeal shockwave therapy shows equivocal benefit with some studies showing significant improvement and others showing none. Although BTX-A injections were the least studied, significant pain improvement was demonstrated in the short and long term. Steroid injection/iontophoresis showed significant improvement in the short term (1 month). Steroid therapy, when coupled with plantar stretching, can provide efficacious pain relief; however, steroid injections should be combined with ultrasound monitoring to reduce complications.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Unknown 133 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 22%
Student > Bachelor 20 14%
Other 15 11%
Student > Postgraduate 14 10%
Researcher 12 9%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 22 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 30 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 05 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,180,004
of 25,292,646 outputs
Outputs from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#34
of 537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,590
of 96,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#2
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 537 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 96,868 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.