↓ Skip to main content

Radiofrequency denervation for neck and back pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Radiofrequency denervation for neck and back pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004058
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leena Niemisto, Eija A Kalso, Antti Malmivaara, Seppo Seitsalo, Heikki Hurri

Abstract

The diagnosis of cervical or lumbar zygapophyseal joint pain can only be made by using local anesthesia to block the nerves supplying the painful joint. There is a lack of effective treatment for chronic zygapophyseal joint pain or discogenic pain. Radiofrequency denervation appears to be an emerging technology, with substantial variation in its use between countries.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 77 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 24%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Researcher 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 6%
Psychology 3 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 10 13%

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 19 December 2019.
All research outputs
#3,446,830
of 14,521,746 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,100
of 10,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,361
of 190,133 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,521,746 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 190,133 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.