↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of myofascial pain syndrome with lidocaine injection and physical therapy, alone or in combination: a single blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
159 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
Treatment of myofascial pain syndrome with lidocaine injection and physical therapy, alone or in combination: a single blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-0949-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luz Helena Lugo, Hector Ivan García, Heather L. Rogers, Jesús Alberto Plata

Abstract

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) of the shoulder girdle and cervical region is a common musculoskeletal problem that is often chronic or recurrent. Physical therapy (PT) and lidocaine injections (LI) are two treatments with demonstrated effectiveness compared to a control group, however little is known about their combined value. The objective of this study was to determine whether LI into trigger points combined with a PT program would be more effective than each separate treatment alone in improving pain, function, and quality of life in a group of patients with MPS of the shoulder girdle and cervical region. A single-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial (RCT) was conducted with three parallel groups in the Departments of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation of two urban hospitals in Medellin, Colombia. One hundred and twenty seven patients with shoulder girdle MPS for more than 6 weeks and pain greater than 40 mm on the visual analog scale (VAS) were assigned to 1 of 3 intervention groups: PT, LI, or the combination of both (PT + LI). The primary outcome was VAS pain rating at 1-month post-treatment. The secondary outcomes included VAS pain rating at 3 months, and, at both 1 and 3 months post-treatment: (a) function, evaluated by hand-back maneuver and the hand-mouth maneuver, (b) quality of life, as measured by sub-scales of the Short Form - 36 (SF-36), and (c) depressive symptoms, as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire - 9 (PHQ-9). Independent t-tests were used to compare outcomes between groups at 1 month and 3 months post-treatment. In the per protocol analysis, there were no significant intergroup differences in VAS at 1 month PT + LI, 40.8 [25.3] vs. PT, 37.8 [21.9], p = 0.560 and vs. LI, 44.2 [24.9], p = 0.545. There were also no differences between groups on secondary outcomes except that the PT and PT + LI groups had higher right upper limb hand-back maneuver scores compared to the LI alone group at both 1 and 3 months (p = 0.013 and p = 0.016 respectively). The results of this RCT showed that no differences in pain ratings were observed between the individual treatments (PT or LI) compared to the combined treatment of PT and LI. In general, no difference in primary or secondary outcomes was observed between treatments. NTC01250184 November 27, 2010.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 159 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 158 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 21%
Student > Bachelor 27 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 27 17%
Unknown 34 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 22%
Sports and Recreations 6 4%
Arts and Humanities 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 42 26%

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 20 March 2016.
All research outputs
#7,021,176
of 12,978,654 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,201
of 2,587 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,091
of 267,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,978,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,587 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 267,373 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 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