↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The effect and safety of ozone autohemotherapy combined with pharmacological therapy in postherpetic neuralgia

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
The effect and safety of ozone autohemotherapy combined with pharmacological therapy in postherpetic neuralgia
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, August 2018
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s154154
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bin Hu, Jie Zheng, Qing Liu, Yunkuan Yang, Ying Zhang

Abstract

We investigated the effect and safety of ozone autohemotherapy combined with pharmacological therapy in postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Ninety-eight patients with PHN were enrolled in this study and randomly divided into a pharmacological therapy group and ozone autohemotherapy group (49 patients in each group). The PHN patients in the pharmacological therapy group were administered pharmacological therapy for 2 weeks, whereas PHN patients in the ozone autohemotherapy group were given ozone autohemotherapy (200 mL blood from patients, the concentration of medical ozone was set as 30 μg/mL using an ozone medical apparatus, 40 mL medical ozone was incubated in 200 mL autologous blood for 3-5 minutes) combined with pharmacological therapy for 2 weeks. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the 50% VAS reduction in the initial value, McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), the Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scale, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) instrument were used to evaluate the outcomes of all PHN patients before therapy and at 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months after therapy. Forty-five patients in the pharmacological therapy group and 47 patients in the ozone autohemotherapy group completed the study. Compared with before therapy, the two groups showed significant improvements in VAS, MPQ, PGIC, and WHOQOL-BREF scores after therapy (P<0.05). Moreover, compared with the scores of the pharmacological therapy group, the ozone autohemotherapy group's scores were significantly improved in the VAS, MPQ, PGIC, and WHOQOL-BREF as well as the 50% VAS reduction of the initial value after therapy (P<0.05). Finally, there were no statistically significant differences in adverse effects between groups after therapy (P>0.05). The results of this study demonstrated that ozone autohemotherapy combined with pharmacological therapy was superior to isolated pharmacological therapy in patients with PHN and was an effective and safe way to relieve PHN.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Researcher 4 9%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 14 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 34%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 15 32%
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 06 April 2024.
All research outputs
#8,066,644
of 25,658,139 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#816
of 2,000 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,350
of 342,680 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#24
of 60 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,658,139 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 2,000 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 342,680 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 60 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.