↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

An open-label pilot study of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome pain

Overview of attention for article published in International Medical Case Reports Journal, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
An open-label pilot study of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in the treatment of failed back surgery syndrome pain
Published in
International Medical Case Reports Journal, December 2014
DOI 10.2147/imcrj.s73068
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wayne L Harper, William K Schmidt, Nicole J Kubat, Richard A Isenberg

Abstract

Persistent pain following back surgery remains a major treatment challenge. The primary objective of this open-label exploratory study was to investigate the analgesic effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy administered twice daily over a 45-day period in 34 subjects (68% female) with persistent or recurrent pain following back surgery. A secondary goal was to guide the design of future randomized controlled trials that could target responsive subpopulations. All predefined primary and secondary outcomes, including change in pain intensity (PI), physical function (Oswestry Disability Index), analgesic consumption, and overall well-being (Patient Global Impression of Change), are reported. A responder analysis (≥30% reduction in PI versus baseline) was added as a post hoc evaluation. Safety outcomes, as well as results of a cost-avoidance survey, are also summarized. Of the 30 per-protocol subjects who completed the study, 33% reported a clinically meaningful (≥30%) reduction in PI. A higher response rate (60%) was reported for subjects who had undergone discectomy prior to the trial compared to subjects who had undergone other types of surgical interventions (decompression or fusion) without discectomy. Improvements in PI were paralleled by improvements in secondary outcomes. Relative to baseline, responders reported an average 44% and 55% reduction in back PI and leg PI (respectively), and an average 13% improvement in Oswestry Disability Index scores. In the per-protocol population, 50% of responders and 12% of nonresponders reported less analgesia consumption at the end of treatment versus baseline. Sixty-seven percent of per-protocol responders and 0% of nonresponders reported clinically meaningful improvement in overall well-being on the Patient Global Impression of Change scale.

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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Colombia 1 3%
Unknown 35 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Unspecified 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 12 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 32%
Unspecified 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 13 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 April 2016.
All research outputs
#17,746,536
of 22,789,566 outputs
Outputs from International Medical Case Reports Journal
#227
of 373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,774
of 361,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Medical Case Reports Journal
#2
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,566 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 361,469 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.