↓ Skip to main content

Optimising corticosteroid injection for lateral epicondylalgia with the addition of physiotherapy: A protocol for a randomised control trial with placebo comparison

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
238 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Optimising corticosteroid injection for lateral epicondylalgia with the addition of physiotherapy: A protocol for a randomised control trial with placebo comparison
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, June 2009
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-10-76
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brooke K Coombes, Leanne Bisset, Luke B Connelly, Peter Brooks, Bill Vicenzino

Abstract

Corticosteroid injection and physiotherapy are two commonly prescribed interventions for management of lateral epicondylalgia. Corticosteroid injections are the most clinically efficacious in the short term but are associated with high recurrence rates and delayed recovery, while physiotherapy is similar to injections at 6 weeks but with significantly lower recurrence rates. Whilst practitioners frequently recommend combining physiotherapy and injection to overcome harmful effects and improve outcomes, study of the benefits of this combination of treatments is lacking. Clinicians are also faced with the paradox that the powerful anti-inflammatory corticosteroid injections work well, albeit in the short term, for a non-inflammatory condition like lateral epicondylalgia. Surprisingly, these injections have not been rigorously tested against placebo injections. This study primarily addresses both of these issues.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 238 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Greece 1 <1%
Guatemala 1 <1%
Unknown 230 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 32 13%
Student > Master 32 13%
Student > Bachelor 29 12%
Researcher 26 11%
Lecturer 12 5%
Other 50 21%
Unknown 57 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 15%
Sports and Recreations 14 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Psychology 5 2%
Other 20 8%
Unknown 68 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 April 2023.
All research outputs
#14,427,926
of 23,567,572 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,116
of 4,145 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,192
of 112,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,572 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,145 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 112,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.