↓ Skip to main content

Benefits in pain perception, ability function and health-related quality of life in patients with failed back surgery syndrome undergoing spinal cord stimulation in a clinical practice setting

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2018
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 (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Benefits in pain perception, ability function and health-related quality of life in patients with failed back surgery syndrome undergoing spinal cord stimulation in a clinical practice setting
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12955-018-0887-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luciana Scalone, Furio Zucco, Angelo Lavano, Amedeo Costantini, Marisa De Rose, Paolo Poli, Gianpaolo Fortini, Laura Demartini, Enrico De Simone, Valentino Menardo, Mario Meglio, Paolo Cozzolino, Paolo A. Cortesi, Lorenzo G. Mantovani

Abstract

Failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) represents one main cause of chronic neuropathic or mixed pain, functional disability and reduced Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL). Spinal Cord Stimulation (SCS) can be a value for money option to treat patients refractory to conventional medical management (CMM). We estimated from real-world data: 1) the amount of reduced levels of HRQoL of target patients compared to general population, 2) the relationship between pain intensity, functional disability, and overall HRQoL, and 3) the improvement of patients’ health from SCS intervention, and 4) we give some insights and make some suggestions on the selection of a battery of patients’ reported health instruments for use in routine clinical practice. At recruitment (before SCS) and every 6 months for 2 years after SCS a battery of questionnaires/tests were completed: the generic EQ-5D and SF-36 for HRQoL, the specific Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) to measure pain intensity, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) to measure functional disability. We conducted multilevel regression analyses to investigate the association of HRQoL with the NRS and ODI indexes; multiple regression analyses to compare EQ-5D data with those of the general population adjusted for age, sex and education, and statistical tests to compare the changes of HRQoL, NRS and ODI estimates at baseline with those measured during the follow-up. Eighty patients (40% male, mean age = 58 years) participated. HRQoL was significantly worse in the patients than in the corresponding general population. Pain, functional disability and HRQoL significantly related each other during follow-up, Significant improvements (p < 0.001) in pain intensity, functional capability and HRQoL were reached after 6 months from SCS and generally remained stable during follow-up. Specific instruments provided detailed information on disability and pain, while generic instruments assessed the overall HRQoL and allowed a comparison with the general population’s one. SCS + CMM treatment reaches a statistically significant and probably a clinically relevant improvement in pain perception, functional disability and HRQoL in patients with FBSS refractory to CMM. An appropriate selection of instruments for use in clinical practice is crucial for a routine assessment of health perception in patients, aimed to guide decisions for optimal treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 81 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 11%
Unspecified 7 9%
Other 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 28 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Unspecified 7 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 31 38%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,470,082
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#607
of 2,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,213
of 327,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#59
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 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 2,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 327,380 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.