↓ Skip to main content

The appropriate management of persisting pain after spine surgery: a European panel study with recommendations based on the RAND/UCLA method

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, August 2018
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 (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
The appropriate management of persisting pain after spine surgery: a European panel study with recommendations based on the RAND/UCLA method
Published in
European Spine Journal, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00586-018-5711-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Volker M. Tronnier, Sam Eldabe, Jörg Franke, Frank Huygen, Philippe Rigoard, Javier de Andres Ares, Richard Assaker, Alejandro Gomez-Rice, Marco La Grua, Maarten Moens, Lieven Moke, Christophe Perruchoud, Nasir A. Quraishi, Dominique A. Rothenfluh, Pedram Tabatabaei, Koen Van Boxem, Carmen Vleggeert-Lankamp, Björn Zoëga, Herman J. Stoevelaar

Abstract

Management of patients with persisting pain after spine surgery (PPSS) shows significant variability, and there is limited evidence from clinical studies to support treatment choice in daily practice. This study aimed to develop patient-specific recommendations on the management of PPSS. Using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (RUAM), an international panel of 6 neurosurgeons, 6 pain specialists, and 6 orthopaedic surgeons assessed the appropriateness of 4 treatment options (conservative, minimally invasive, neurostimulation, and re-operation) for 210 clinical scenarios. These scenarios were unique combinations of patient characteristics considered relevant to treatment choice. Appropriateness had to be expressed on a 9-point scale (1 = extremely inappropriate, 9 = extremely appropriate). A treatment was considered appropriate if the median score was ≥ 7 in the absence of disagreement (≥ 1/3 of ratings in each of the opposite sections 1-3 and 7-9). Appropriateness outcomes showed clear and specific patterns. In 48% of the scenarios, exclusively one of the 4 treatments was appropriate. Conservative treatment was usually considered appropriate for patients without clear anatomic abnormalities and for those with new pain differing from the original symptoms. Neurostimulation was considered appropriate in the case of (predominant) neuropathic leg pain in the absence of conditions that may require surgical intervention. Re-operation could be considered for patients with recurrent disc, spinal/foraminal stenosis, or spinal instability. Using the RUAM, an international multidisciplinary panel established criteria for appropriate treatment choice in patients with PPSS. These may be helpful to educate physicians and to improve consistency and quality of care. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 7 15%
Researcher 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Professor 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Neuroscience 3 7%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 20 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 21 June 2020.
All research outputs
#3,750,581
of 23,865,786 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#376
of 4,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,116
of 332,027 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#8
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,865,786 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,900 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 332,027 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 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 92% of its contemporaries.