↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of conservative treatments for the lumbosacral radicular syndrome: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in European Spine Journal, April 2007
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Readers on

mendeley
259 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
Effectiveness of conservative treatments for the lumbosacral radicular syndrome: a systematic review
Published in
European Spine Journal, April 2007
DOI 10.1007/s00586-007-0367-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pim A. J. Luijsterburg, Arianne P. Verhagen, Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo, Ton A. G. van Os, Wilco C. Peul, Bart W. Koes

Abstract

Patients with a lumbosacral radicular syndrome are mostly treated conservatively first. The effect of the conservative treatments remains controversial. To assess the effectiveness of conservative treatments of the lumbosacral radicular syndrome (sciatica). Relevant electronic databases and the reference lists of articles up to May 2004 were searched. Randomised clinical trials of all types of conservative treatments for patients with the lumbosacral radicular syndrome selected by two reviewers. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality and the clinical relevance. Because the trials were considered heterogeneous we decided not to perform a meta-analysis but to summarise the results using the rating system of levels of evidence. Thirty trials were included that evaluated injections, traction, physical therapy, bed rest, manipulation, medication, and acupuncture as treatment for the lumbosacral radicular syndrome. Because several trials indicated no evidence of an effect it is not recommended to use corticosteroid injections and traction as treatment option. Whether clinicians should prescribe physical therapy, bed rest, manipulation or medication could not be concluded from this review. At present there is no evidence that one type of treatment is clearly superior to others, including no treatment, for patients with a lumbosacral radicular syndrome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 1%
Italy 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 253 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 48 19%
Student > Bachelor 38 15%
Other 25 10%
Student > Postgraduate 23 9%
Researcher 22 8%
Other 56 22%
Unknown 47 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 14%
Sports and Recreations 16 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 2%
Other 27 10%
Unknown 54 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 30 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,242,047
of 24,712,008 outputs
Outputs from European Spine Journal
#190
of 5,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,114
of 84,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Spine Journal
#2
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,712,008 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,104 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 84,610 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 93% of its contemporaries.