↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

The usefulness of ozone treatment in spinal pain

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, May 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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
Title
The usefulness of ozone treatment in spinal pain
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s74518
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valter Travagli, Velio Bocci, Emma Borrelli, Iacopo Zanardi

Abstract

The aim of this review is to elucidate the biochemical, molecular, immunological, and pharmaceutical mechanisms of action of ozone dissolved in biological fluids. Studies performed during the last two decades allow the drawing of a comprehensive framework for understanding and recommending the integration of ozone therapy for spinal pain. An in-depth screening of primary sources of information online - via SciFinder Scholar, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases as well as Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews - was performed. In this review, the most significant papers of the last 25 years are presented and their proposals critically evaluated, regardless of the bibliometric impact of the journals. The efficacy of standard treatments combined with the unique capacity of ozone therapy to reactivate the innate antioxidant system is the key to correcting the oxidative stress typical of chronic inflammatory diseases. Pain pathways and control systems of algesic signals after ozone administration are described. This paper finds favors the full insertion of ozone therapy into pharmaceutical sciences, rather than as either an alternative or an esoteric approach.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 120 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 22%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Other 13 10%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 27 22%
Unknown 21 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Other 24 19%
Unknown 27 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 2020.
All research outputs
#1,444,286
of 17,673,294 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#54
of 1,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,656
of 239,365 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#2
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,673,294 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,739 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 239,365 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.