↓ Skip to main content

Safety of Epidural Corticosteroid Injections

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs in R&D, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
Title
Safety of Epidural Corticosteroid Injections
Published in
Drugs in R&D, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40268-015-0119-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ippokratis Pountos, Michalis Panteli, Gavin Walters, Dudley Bush, Peter V. Giannoudis

Abstract

Epidural corticosteroid injections (ESIs) have been used for several decades and now represent the most common intervention performed for the management of back pain with a radicular component. However, several reports have presented devastating complications and adverse effects, which fuelled concerns over the risk versus clinical effectiveness. The authors offer a comprehensive review of the available literature and analyse the data derived from studies and case reports. Studies were identified by searching PubMed MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library to retrieve all available relevant articles. Publications from the last 20 years (September 1994 to September 2014) were considered for further analysis. Studies selected were English-language original articles publishing results on complications related to the technique used for cervical and lumbar ESIs. The studies had to specify the approach used for injection. All studies that did not fulfil these eligibility criteria were excluded from further analysis. Overall, the available literature supports the view that serious complications following injections of corticosteroid suspensions into the cervical and lumbar epidural space are uncommon, but if they occur they can be devastating. The true incidence of such complications remains unclear. Direct vascular injury and/or administration of injectates intra-arterially represent a major concern and could account for the vast majority of the adverse events reported. Accurate placement of the needle, use of a non-particulate corticosteroid, live fluoroscopy, digital subtraction angiography, and familiarisation of the operator with contrast patterns on fluoroscopy should minimise these risks. The available literature has several limitations including incomplete documentation, unreported data and inherent bias. Large registries and well-structured observational studies are needed to determine the true incidence of adverse events and address the safety concerns.

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 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 13%
Other 9 11%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 24 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 41%
Engineering 4 5%
Psychology 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 27 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 December 2022.
All research outputs
#3,038,889
of 23,393,453 outputs
Outputs from Drugs in R&D
#55
of 338 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,638
of 395,582 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs in R&D
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,393,453 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 338 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 395,582 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them