↓ Skip to main content

Sciatica in the female patient: anatomical considerations, aetiology and review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, April 2006
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Sciatica in the female patient: anatomical considerations, aetiology and review of the literature
Published in
European Spine Journal, April 2006
DOI 10.1007/s00586-006-0074-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Abdul-Wahab T. Al-Khodairy, Philippe Bovay, Charles Gobelet

Abstract

The principal author was confronted few years ago with the case of a 38-year-old woman with a 5-month history of ill-defined L5 sciatic pain that was referred to an orthopaedic department for investigation and eventual surgical treatment for what was suspected to be herniated disc-related sciatica. Removal of her enlarged uterus found unexpectedly close to the sacroiliac joint upon lumbar MRI abolished her symptoms. Review of the literature showed that the lumbosacral trunk is vulnerable to pressure from any abdominal mass originating from the uterus and the ovaries. Physiological processes in the female patient and gynaecological diseases may be the source of sciatica, often not readily searched for, leading to fruitless investigations and surgical treatments. The aim of the paper is to highlight gynaecological and obstetrical causes of sciatica and sciatica-like symptoms. To prevent unproductive expenses and morbidity, a thorough gynaecological examination should be done even though neurological examination may be suggestive of a herniated intervertebral disc, and the cyclic pattern of pain related to menses should be routinely asked for.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Tanzania, United Republic of 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 83 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 16%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Other 24 27%
Unknown 11 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 13 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 December 2020.
All research outputs
#16,989,957
of 24,973,800 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#2,202
of 5,147 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,613
of 79,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#16
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,973,800 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,147 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 79,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.