| Title |
Epidural steroid injections for lumbar spinal stenosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, October 2007
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12178-007-9003-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mark A. Harrast |
| Abstract |
Degenerative lumbar stenosis is a common source of pain and disability in the elderly. It presents clinically with a variety of symptoms, though neurogenic claudication is the hallmark. There is a multifactorial pathogenesis to lumbar stenosis and its symptoms, and thus, there are multiple management approaches available. Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a popular choice in management, however, the literature is vague in definitive support of their use, and providers that utilize injections can use variable techniques to access the spinal canal in order to deposit the steroid at the appropriate site. This article will review degenerative lumbar stenosis in general and focus on the use of ESIs to better define their role in this management process. In addition, the evidence to discern the optimal injection route will be presented. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 5% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 52 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 23% |
| Other | 8 | 14% |
| Professor | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 18% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 55% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 24 April 2018.
All research outputs
#6,496,331
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#188
of 539 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,412
of 89,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 539 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 89,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 50% of its contemporaries.