↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Evaluation of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for the treatment of chronic postoperative pain following lumbar surgery: a pilot, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, June 2018
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
8 X users
video
2 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for the treatment of chronic postoperative pain following lumbar surgery: a pilot, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled clinical trial
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, June 2018
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s164303
Pubmed ID
Authors

Robert Gordon Sorrell, Jamie Muhlenfeld, John Moffett, Gary Stevens, Steven Kesten

Abstract

The incidence of chronic postoperative pain following lumbar spinal surgery has increased with the overall increase in the prevalence of lumbar surgery. This study was conducted to evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy in subjects with persistent pain following lumbar surgery. A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, multicenter study in 36 subjects with persistent low-back and/or radiating leg pain after lumbar surgery was conducted. Eligible subjects were randomized (1:1:1) to receive one of two doses of therapy (42-μs or 38-μs pulse width) or treatment with a sham device. Subjects self-treated twice daily for 60 days. The primary end point was change in pain intensity (∆PI) using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale between average baseline (Days -5 to -1) and end of treatment (Days 56-60) for lumbar and radiating leg pain. Secondary outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index, Beck Depression Inventory-II, Patient Global Impression of Change, and consumption of analgesics. Low-back pain scores for the 42-μs group decreased by 40.2% (p = 0.028), compared to 18.6% for the 38-μs pulse width group (p = 0.037) and 25.6% for the sham group (p = 0.013 per protocol population). Average leg pain scores decreased by 45.0% (42 μs, p = 0.009), 17.0% (38 μs, p = 0.293), and 24.5% (sham, p = 0.065). The proportion of subjects responding to therapy, time to 30% reduction in pain scores, and Patient Global Impression of Change were improved with the PEMF 42-μs device over the sham control, although results were associated with p-values >0.05. PEMF therapy (42-μs pulse width) was associated with trends for a reduction in pain, compared to sham treatment. Secondary endpoints were consistent with an overall beneficial effect of the PEMF 42-μs pulse width device.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 23 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 13%
Engineering 5 7%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 26 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 21 June 2023.
All research outputs
#1,932,555
of 24,503,201 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#220
of 1,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,843
of 335,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#5
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,503,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,899 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 335,346 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 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 90% of its contemporaries.