↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparison of ozone and lidocaine injection efficacy vs dry needling in myofascial pain syndrome patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of ozone and lidocaine injection efficacy vs dry needling in myofascial pain syndrome patients
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, June 2018
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s164629
Pubmed ID
Authors

Seyed Ahmad Raeissadat, Seyed Mansoor Rayegani, Fatemeh Sadeghi, Shahram Rahimi-Dehgolan

Abstract

Myofascial pain syndrome (MPS) is a common musculoskeletal disorder among young adults associated with presence of myofascial trigger points. We aimed to evaluate efficacy of ozone injection (OI) in MPS patients, compared with two currently used methods including lidocaine injection (LI) and dry needling (DN). In this single-blinded study, a total of 72 eligible patients were included and then randomly divided into three equal groups: DN, OI, and LI. All patients received treatment in three weekly sessions. Visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, cervical lateral flexion, pain pressure threshold (PPT), and neck disability index (NDI) were the main outcome measures, which were evaluated at baseline and at 4 weeks after injections. Analytic results were demonstrated as both within- and between-groups mean difference (MD). Sixty two patients finished the study, 20 participants in both the DN and LI groups, and 22 persons in OI group. Distribution of all demographics and baseline clinical variables were relatively similar among groups. All three interventions were remarkably effective in improving patients' pain and PPT. Significant decrease in VAS (MD=-3.6±1.4) and increase in PPT (MD=7.2±5.1) within 4 weeks follow-up confirmed this finding. Also, NDI had similar significant improvement (MD=-9.9±8.7), but lateral flexion range did not show remarkable increase. There was also a statistically significant difference among three methods' efficacy on VAS, NDI, and PPT, favoring OI and LI. In summary, this data showed that in short-term follow-up, all three methods were significantly effective in MPS treatment; however, OI and LI groups had slightly better results than the DN group, with no remarkable preference between them.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 15%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 8 7%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 41 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 19%
Sports and Recreations 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 45 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#7,324,628
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#732
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,830
of 330,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#23
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 330,324 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 60% 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 is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.