↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A review of spinal cord stimulation systems for chronic pain

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#4 of 1,947)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
67 news outlets
twitter
7 X users
patent
2 patents
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
187 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
345 Mendeley
Title
A review of spinal cord stimulation systems for chronic pain
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s108884
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Verrills, Chantelle Sinclair, Adele Barnard

Abstract

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) applications and technologies are fast advancing. New SCS technologies are being used increasingly in the clinical environment, but often there is a lag period between the clinical application and the publishing of high-quality evidence on safety and efficacy. Recent developments will undoubtedly expand the applicability of SCS, allowing more effective and individualized treatment for patients, and may have the potential to salvage patients who have previously failed neuromodulation. Already, high-level evidence exists for the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness (Level I-II) of traditional SCS therapies in the treatment of chronic refractory low back with predominant limb pain (regardless of surgical history). More than half of all patients with chronic painful conditions experience sustained and significant levels of pain reduction following SCS treatment. Although only limited evidence exists for burst stimulation, there is now Level I evidence for both dorsal root ganglion SCS and high-frequency SCS that demonstrates compelling results compared with traditional therapies. The body of evidence built on traditional SCS research may be redundant, with newer iterations of SCS therapies such as dorsal root ganglion SCS, high-frequency SCS, and burst SCS. A number of variables have been identified that can affect SCS efficacy: implanter experience, appropriate patient selection, etiologies of patient pain, existence of comorbidities, including psychiatric illness, smoking status, and delay to SCS implant following pain onset. Overall, scientific literature demonstrates SCS to be a safe, effective, and drug-free treatment option for many chronic pain etiologies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 345 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 342 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 52 15%
Student > Master 46 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 39 11%
Student > Bachelor 31 9%
Other 29 8%
Other 61 18%
Unknown 87 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 29%
Engineering 45 13%
Neuroscience 38 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 3%
Other 38 11%
Unknown 101 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 533. 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 22 December 2023.
All research outputs
#45,190
of 25,045,181 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#4
of 1,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#933
of 360,315 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,045,181 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 360,315 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 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 99% of its contemporaries.