↓ Skip to main content

Spinal cord stimulators and radiotherapy: First case report and practice guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Radiation Oncology, October 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Spinal cord stimulators and radiotherapy: First case report and practice guidelines
Published in
Radiation Oncology, October 2011
DOI 10.1186/1748-717x-6-143
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lorraine Walsh, Daipayan Guha, Thomas G Purdie, Philippe Bedard, Alexandra Easson, Fei-Fei Liu, Mojgan Hodaie

Abstract

Spinal cord stimulators (SCS) are a well-recognised treatment modality in the management of a number of chronic neuropathic pain conditions, particularly failed back syndrome and radiculopathies. The implantable pulse generator (IPG) component of the SCS is designed and operates in a similar fashion to that of a cardiac pacemaker. The IPG consists of an electrical generator, lithium battery, transmitter/receiver and a minicomputer. When stimulated, it generates pulsed electrical signals which stimulate the dorsal columns of the spinal cord, thus alleviating pain. Analogous to a cardiac pacemaker, it can be potentially damaged by ionising radiation from a linear accelerator, in patients undergoing radiotherapy. Herein we report our clinical management of the first reported case of a patient requiring adjuvant breast radiotherapy who had a SCS in situ. We also provide useful practical recommendations on the management of this scenario within a radiation oncology department.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 25%
Researcher 11 22%
Other 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Professor 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 14%
Neuroscience 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Physics and Astronomy 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 8 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 30 December 2016.
All research outputs
#6,308,150
of 12,437,730 outputs
Outputs from Radiation Oncology
#245
of 1,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,176
of 105,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Radiation Oncology
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,437,730 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,302 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 105,314 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 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.