↓ Skip to main content

Genes associated with persistent lumbar radicular pain; a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Genes associated with persistent lumbar radicular pain; a systematic review
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12891-016-1356-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Siri Bjorland, Aurora Moen, Elina Schistad, Johannes Gjerstad, Cecilie Røe

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to provide an overview of the literature addressing the role of genetic factors and biomarkers predicting pain recovery in newly diagnosed lumbar radicular pain (LRP) patients. The search was performed in Medline OVID, Embase, PsycInfo and Web of Science (2004 to 2015). Only prospective studies of patients with LRP addressing the role of genetic factors (genetic susceptibility) and pain biomarkers (proteins in serum) were included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed methodological quality. The search identified 880 citations of which 15 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Five genetic variants; i.e., OPRM1 rs1799971 G allele, COMT rs4680 G allele, MMP1 rs1799750 2G allele, IL1α rs1800587 T allele, IL1RN rs2234677 A allele, were associated with reduced recovery of LRP. Three biomarkers; i.e., TNFα, IL6 and IFNα, were associated with persistent LRP. The present results indicate that several genetic factors and biomarkers may predict slow recovery in LRP. Still, there is a need for replication of the findings. A stricter use of nomenclature is also highly necessary. The review is registered PROSPERO 20(th) of November 2015. Registration number is CRD42015029125 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 23%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 15%
Student > Master 5 13%
Unspecified 5 13%
Other 7 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 33%
Unspecified 6 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Psychology 3 8%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Other 10 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 December 2016.
All research outputs
#6,691,272
of 8,781,852 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,717
of 2,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#195,281
of 279,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#42
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,781,852 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 279,081 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.