↓ Skip to main content

Predictors of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency procedure use among older people with multiple sclerosis: a national case–control study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Predictors of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency procedure use among older people with multiple sclerosis: a national case–control study
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0835-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle Ploughman, Olivia J Manning, Serge Beaulieu, Chelsea Harris, Stephen H Hogan, Nancy Mayo, John D Fisk, A Dessa Sadovnick, Paul O’Connor, Sarah A Morrow, Luanne M Metz, Penelope Smyth, Penelope W Allderdice, Susan Scott, Ruth Ann Marrie, Mark Stefanelli, Marshall Godwin

Abstract

Following the initial reports of Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency (CCSVI) and the purported curative potential of venoplasty, (coined the 'liberation' procedure) Canadians living with multiple sclerosis (MS) began to travel abroad to receive the unregulated procedure, often placing them at odds with their health providers. The purpose of this study was to determine the factors influencing older MS patients' decision to undergo the procedure in order to develop more specific and targeted health information. We performed secondary analysis of data collected as part of the 'Canadian Survey of Health Lifestyle and Aging with MS' from people over the age of 55 years with MS symptoms for 20 or more years. The survey consisted of self-reported information on impairments, disability, participation, demographics, personal and environmental factors. In order to compare respondents who underwent the procedure to those who did not and to develop a predictive model, we created a comparison group using a case-control algorithm, controlling for age, gender and education, and matching procedure cases to controls 1:3. We used multivariate stepwise least likelihood regression of 'a priori' variables to determine predictive factors. The prevalence of the 'liberation' procedure in our sample was 12.8% (95/743), substantially lower than reported in previous studies of complementary/alternative treatments in MS. The predictive model contained five factors; living alone (Odds ratio 0.24, 95%CI 0.09-0.63), diagnosis of anxiety (Odds ratio 0.29, 95%CI 0.10 - 0.84), rating of neurologist's helpfulness (Odds ratio 0.56, 95%CI 0.44 -0 .71), Body Mass Index (Odds ratio 0.93, 95%CI, 0.89 - 0.98) and perceived physical impact of MS (Odds ratio 1.02, 95%CI 1.01 - 1.04). Predictive factors differed from previous studies of complementary/alternative treatment use likely due to both the invasiveness of the procedure and the advanced age of our study cohort. Our findings suggest that health professionals should target information on the risks and benefits of unregulated procedures to those patients who feel dissatisfied with their neurologist and they should include family members in discussions since they may be providing the logistical support to travel abroad and undergo the 'liberation' procedure. Our findings may be applicable to others with chronic disabling conditions who contemplate the user-pay unregulated invasive procedures available to them.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 56 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 18%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 15 26%
Unknown 16 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 23%
Psychology 9 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Unspecified 3 5%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 19 33%
Attention Score in Context

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 09 May 2015.
All research outputs
#3,614,357
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,589
of 7,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,777
of 237,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#19
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,630 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. 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 237,921 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 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.