↓ Skip to main content

Positioning and spinal bracing for pain relief in metastatic spinal cord compression in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 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
Positioning and spinal bracing for pain relief in metastatic spinal cord compression in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007609.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee, Siew Hwa, Grant, Robin, Kennedy, Catriona, Kilbride, Lynn

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3 (Lee 2012) on patient positioning (mobilisation) and bracing for pain relief and spinal stability in adults with metastatic spinal cord compression.Many patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) have spinal instability, but their clinician has determined that due to their advanced disease they are unsuitable for surgical internal fixation. Mobilising may be hazardous in the presence of spinal instability as further vertebral collapse can occur. Current guidance on positioning (whether a patient should be managed with bed rest or allowed to mobilise) and whether spinal bracing is helpful, is contradictory. To investigate the correct positioning and examine the effects of spinal bracing to relieve pain or to prevent further vertebral collapse in patients with MSCC. For this update, we searched for relevant studies from February 2012 to 31 March 2015. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, TRIP, SIGN, NICE, UK Clinical Research Network, National Guideline Clearinghouse and PEDro database. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov, UK Clinical Trials Gateway (UKCTG), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR).For the original version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, NICE, SIGN, AMED, TRIP, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and PEDro database, in February 2012. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with MSCC of interventions on positioning (mobilisation) and bracing. Two review authors independently assessed each possible study for inclusion and quality. For the original version of the review, we screened 1611 potentially relevant studies. No studies met the inclusion criteria. Many papers identified the importance of mobilisation, but no RCTs of bed rest versus mobilisation have been undertaken. We identified no RCTs of bracing in MSCC.For this update, we identified 347 potential titles. We screened 300 titles and abstracts after removal of duplicates. We did not identify any additional studies for inclusion. Since publication of the original version of this review, no new studies were found and our conclusions remain unchanged.There is a lack of evidence-based guidance around how to correctly position and when to mobilise patients with MSCC or if spinal bracing is an effective technique for reducing pain or improving quality of life. RCTs are required in this important area.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 56%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Unspecified 3 5%
Psychology 3 5%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 1 2%

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 26 April 2016.
All research outputs
#3,014,523
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,295
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,942
of 250,356 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#141
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 250,356 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.