↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of acute sciatica with transforaminal epidural corticosteroids and local anesthetic: design of a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Treatment of acute sciatica with transforaminal epidural corticosteroids and local anesthetic: design of a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12891-017-1571-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bastiaan C. ter Meulen, Esther T. Maas, Amrita Vyas, Marinus van der Vegt, Koo de Priester, Michiel R. de Boer, Maurits W. van Tulder, Henry C. Weinstein, Raymond W. J. G. Ostelo

Abstract

Transforaminal epidural injections with steroids (TESI) are used increasingly for patients with sciatica. However there is much debate about their safety and effectiveness. It is important to identify patients that benefit most from TESI and only few trials have yet evaluated the effects in patients with acute sciatica. We describe a prospective, randomized controlled trial (RCT), with the aim to evaluate the hypothesis that TESI plus Levobupivacaine (TESI-plus) added to oral pain medication is more effective compared to pain medication alone or compared to transforaminal injection with a local anesthetic of short duration among patients with acute sciatica. We will recruit a total of 264 patients with sciatica (<8 weeks) caused by a herniated disc, from two clinical sites. Participants are randomly assigned one of three study groups: 1) oral pain medication (control group), 2) oral pain medication and TESI-plus (intervention group one), 3) oral pain medication and transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) with Levobupivaine and saline solution (intervention group two). Primary outcomes are functional status (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), pain intensity for both leg and back, (100 mm visual analogous scale (VAS)), and global perceived recovery (GPR, reported on a 7-point Likert scale, dichotomized into 'recovered' and 'not recovered'). The secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life (EQ5D-5 L) and patient satisfaction (7-point Likert scale). We will also collect information on healthcare utilization and costs, to perform an economic evaluation. All outcomes are measured at three and six weeks, three and six months after randomization. We defined a minimal clinically relevant difference between groups as a difference between both intervention groups and the control group of 20 points for pain (100-point VAS), four points for functional status (24-point RDQ) and a 20% difference on dichotomized GPR (recovered versus not recovered). A clinically relevant outcome in favor of TESI-plus implies that future patients with acute sciatica should be recommended TESI-plus within the first few weeks rather than being treated with pain medication alone in order to relieve pain and improve their functioning. In case of a negative result (no relevant differences in outcome between the three study arms), pain medication will remain the mainstay of treatment in the acute stages of sciatica. Dutch National trial register: NTR4457 (March, 6th, 2014).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 17 21%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Master 7 9%
Other 5 6%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 24 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 14%
Engineering 3 4%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 25 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 06 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,998,137
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,383
of 4,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,836
of 313,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#28
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,088 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 313,676 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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 65% of its contemporaries.