↓ Skip to main content

The use of lumbar epidural injection of platelet lysate for treatment of radicular pain

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 357)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
The use of lumbar epidural injection of platelet lysate for treatment of radicular pain
Published in
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40634-017-0113-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Centeno, Jason Markle, Ehren Dodson, Ian Stemper, Matthew Hyzy, Christopher Williams, Michael Freeman

Abstract

Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are the most common pain management procedure performed in the US, however evidence of efficacy is limited. In addition, there is early evidence that the high dose of corticosteroids used can have systemic side effects. We describe the results of a case series evaluating the use of platelet lysate (PL) epidural injections for the treatment of lumbar radicular pain as an alternative to corticosteroids. Registry data was obtained for patients (N = 470) treated with PL epidural injections presenting with symptoms of lumbar radicular pain and MRI findings that were consistent with symptoms. Collected outcomes included numeric pain score (NPS), functional rating index (FRI), and a modified single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) rating. Patients treated with PL epidurals reported significantly lower (p < .0001) NPS and FRI change scores at all time points compared to baseline. Post-treatment FRI change score means exceeded the minimal clinically important difference beyond 1 month. Average modified SANE ratings showed 49.7% improvement at 24 months post-treatment. Twenty-nine (6.3%) patients reported mild adverse events related to treatment. Patients treated with PL epidurals reported significant improvements in pain, exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for FRI, and reported subjective improvement through 2-year follow-up. PL may be a promising substitute for corticosteroid.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 18 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 27%
Engineering 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 21 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 13 November 2019.
All research outputs
#2,945,088
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics
#22
of 357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,528
of 441,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 357 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 441,117 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them