↓ Skip to main content

Muscle relaxants for non-specific low-back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
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 (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
138 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
222 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
Muscle relaxants for non-specific low-back pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004252
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maurits W van Tulder, Tony Touray, Andrea D Furlan, Sherra Solway, Lex M Bouter

Abstract

The use of muscle relaxants in the management of non-specific low back pain is controversial. It is not clear if they are effective, and concerns have been raised about the potential adverse effects involved. The aim of this review was to determine if muscle relaxants are effective in the treatment of non-specific low back pain. A computer-assisted search of the Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (1966 up to October 2001) and EMBASE (1988 up to October 2001) was carried out. These databases were searched using the algorithm recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group. References cited in the identified articles and other relevant literature were screened. Randomised and/or double-blinded controlled trials, involving patients diagnosed with non-specific low back pain, treated with muscle relaxants as monotherapy or in combination with other therapeutic modalities, were included for review. Two reviewers independently carried out the methodological quality assessment and data extraction of the trials. The analysis comprised not only a quantitative analysis (statistical pooling) but also a qualitative analysis ("best evidence synthesis"). This involved the appraisal of the strength of evidence for various conclusions using a rating system based on the quality and outcomes of the studies included. Evidence was classified as "strong", "moderate", "limited", "conflicting" or "no" evidence. Thirty trials met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-three trials (77%) were of high quality, 24 trials (80%) were on acute low back pain. Four trials studied benzodiazepines, 11 non-benzodiazepines and two antispasticity muscle relaxants in comparison with placebo. Results showed that there is strong evidence that any of these muscle relaxants are more effective than placebo for patients with acute LBP on short-term pain relief. The pooled RR for non-benzodiazepines versus placebo after two to four days was 0.80 [95% CI; 0.71 to 0.89] for pain relief and 0.49 [95% CI; 0.25 to 0.95] for global efficacy. Adverse events, however, with a relative risk of 1.50 [95% CI; 1.14 to 1.98] were significantly more prevalent in patients receiving muscle relaxants and especially the central nervous system adverse effects (RR 2.04; 95% CI; 1.23 to 3.37). The various muscle relaxants were found to be similar in performance. Muscle relaxants are effective in the management of non-specific low back pain, but the adverse effects require that they be used with caution. Trials are needed that evaluate if muscle relaxants are more effective than analgesics or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 217 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 17%
Student > Bachelor 36 16%
Researcher 30 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 10%
Other 18 8%
Other 51 23%
Unknown 27 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 106 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 29 13%
Unknown 38 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,079,053
of 16,294,222 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,924
of 11,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,751
of 156,120 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,294,222 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,465 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 156,120 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 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.