| Title |
Epidural corticosteroid injections for lumbosacral radicular pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd013577 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Crystian B Oliveira, Christopher G Maher, Manuela L Ferreira, Mark J Hancock, Vinicius Cunha Oliveira, Andrew J McLachlan, Bart W Koes, Paulo H Ferreira, Steven P Cohen, Rafael Zambelli Pinto |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 12% |
| Australia | 5 | 9% |
| Brazil | 5 | 9% |
| United States | 3 | 5% |
| France | 3 | 5% |
| Spain | 3 | 5% |
| Canada | 3 | 5% |
| Finland | 1 | 2% |
| India | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 23 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 37 | 64% |
| Scientists | 10 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 227 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 227 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 31 | 14% |
| Other | 20 | 9% |
| Researcher | 16 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 40 | 18% |
| Unknown | 93 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 66 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 1% |
| Other | 23 | 10% |
| Unknown | 101 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 78. 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 February 2024.
All research outputs
#552,850
of 25,595,500 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#981
of 13,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,419
of 402,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,595,500 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,156 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 402,123 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.