↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Positioning and spinal bracing for pain relief in metastatic spinal cord compression in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
151 Mendeley
Title
Positioning and spinal bracing for pain relief in metastatic spinal cord compression in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007609.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siew Hwa Lee, Robin Grant, Catriona Kennedy, Lynn Kilbride

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3 (Lee 2012) on patient positioning (mobilisation) and bracing for pain relief and spinal stability in adults with metastatic spinal cord compression.Many patients with metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) have spinal instability, but their clinician has determined that due to their advanced disease they are unsuitable for surgical internal fixation. Mobilising may be hazardous in the presence of spinal instability as further vertebral collapse can occur. Current guidance on positioning (whether a patient should be managed with bed rest or allowed to mobilise) and whether spinal bracing is helpful, is contradictory. To investigate the correct positioning and examine the effects of spinal bracing to relieve pain or to prevent further vertebral collapse in patients with MSCC. For this update, we searched for relevant studies from February 2012 to 31 March 2015. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and MEDLINE In Process, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, TRIP, SIGN, NICE, UK Clinical Research Network, National Guideline Clearinghouse and PEDro database. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov, UK Clinical Trials Gateway (UKCTG), WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR).For the original version, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CANCERLIT, NICE, SIGN, AMED, TRIP, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and PEDro database, in February 2012. We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with MSCC of interventions on positioning (mobilisation) and bracing. Two review authors independently assessed each possible study for inclusion and quality. For the original version of the review, we screened 1611 potentially relevant studies. No studies met the inclusion criteria. Many papers identified the importance of mobilisation, but no RCTs of bed rest versus mobilisation have been undertaken. We identified no RCTs of bracing in MSCC.For this update, we identified 347 potential titles. We screened 300 titles and abstracts after removal of duplicates. We did not identify any additional studies for inclusion. Since publication of the original version of this review, no new studies were found and our conclusions remain unchanged.There is a lack of evidence-based guidance around how to correctly position and when to mobilise patients with MSCC or if spinal bracing is an effective technique for reducing pain or improving quality of life. RCTs are required in this important area.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 151 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%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 148 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Other 31 21%
Unknown 31 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 17%
Psychology 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 37 25%

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 26 April 2016.
All research outputs
#3,177,176
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,717
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,196
of 250,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#179
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 250,430 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.