| Title |
The current role and future directions of imaging in failed back surgery syndrome patients: an educational review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Insights into Imaging, July 2022
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13244-022-01246-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Richard L. Witkam, Constantinus F. Buckens, Johan W. M. van Goethem, Kris C. P. Vissers, Dylan J. H. A. Henssen |
| Abstract |
Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) is an umbrella term referring to painful sensations experienced by patients after spinal surgery, mostly of neuropathic nature. Adequate treatment of FBSS is challenging, as its etiology is believed to be multifactorial and still not fully clarified. Accurate identification of the source of pain is difficult but pivotal to establish the most appropriate treatment strategy. Although the clinical utility of imaging in FBSS patients is still contentious, objective parameters are highly warranted to map different phenotypes of FBSS and tailor each subsequent therapy. Since technological developments have weakened the applicability of prior research, this educational review outlined the recent evidence (i.e., from January 2005 onwards) after a systematic literature search. The state of the art on multiple imaging modalities in FBSS patients was reviewed. Future directions related to functional MRI and the development of imaging biomarkers have also been discussed. Besides the fact that more imaging studies correlated with symptomatology in the postoperative setting are warranted, the current educational review outlined that contrast-enhanced MRI and MR neurography have been suggested as valuable imaging protocols to assess alterations in the spine of FBSS patients. The use of imaging biomarkers to study correlations between imaging features and symptomatology might hold future potential; however, more research is required before any promising hypotheses can be drawn. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 20% |
| Austria | 1 | 20% |
| Spain | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 3 | 60% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 12 | 60% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 65% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 14 September 2023.
All research outputs
#3,905,146
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Insights into Imaging
#221
of 1,086 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,020
of 424,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Insights into Imaging
#9
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,086 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 424,340 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.