| Title |
Cervical Radicular Pain: The Role of Interlaminar and Transforaminal Epidural Injections
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Pain and Headache Reports, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11916-013-0389-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Laxmaiah Manchikanti, Frank J. E. Falco, Sudhir Diwan, Joshua A. Hirsch, Howard S. Smith |
| Abstract |
Chronic neck pain and cervical radicular pain are relatively common in the adult population. Treatment for chronic radicular pain recalcitrant to conservative management includes surgical management as well as interventional techniques with epidural injections utilizing either an interlaminar approach or transforaminal approach. Although there have been multiple systematic reviews and randomized clinical trials of cervical interlaminar epidural injections, the literature is sparse in reference to cervical transforaminal epidural injections. Overall, there is good evidence for the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing cervical disc herniation and fair evidence in managing central spinal stenosis and postsurgery syndrome. The evidence is poor, however, for cervical transforaminal epidural injections. Complications with cervical interlaminar epidural injections are rare, but more commonly occur with transforaminal epidural injections and can be fatal. Emerging concepts in pain include further randomized trials; proper placebo design; focus on control design (either active control or placebo control); and appropriate methodologic quality assessment and evidence synthesis. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 13 | 21% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 26% |
| Unknown | 9 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 61% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 26 June 2023.
All research outputs
#7,445,163
of 22,759,618 outputs
Outputs from Current Pain and Headache Reports
#329
of 799 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,539
of 307,447 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Pain and Headache Reports
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,759,618 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 799 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 307,447 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 63% of its contemporaries.