↓ Skip to main content

Thoracic costotransverse joint pain patterns: a study in normal volunteers

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
Title
Thoracic costotransverse joint pain patterns: a study in normal volunteers
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, October 2008
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-9-140
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian A Young, Howard E Gill, Robert S Wainner, Timothy W Flynn

Abstract

Pain referral patterns of asymptomatic costotransverse joints have not been established. The objective of this study was to determine the pain referral patterns of asymptomatic costotransverse joints via provocative intra-articular injection. Eight asymptomatic male volunteers received a combined total of 21 intra-articular costotransverse joint injections. Fluoroscopic imaging was used to identify and isolate each costotransverse joint and guide placement of a 25 gauge, 2.5 inch spinal needle into the costotransverse joint. Following contrast medium injection, the quality, intensity, and distribution of the resultant pain produced were recorded. Of the 21 costotransverse joint injections, 16 (76%) were classified as being intra-articular via arthrograms taken at the time of injection, and 14 of these injections produced a pain sensation distinctly different from that of needle placement. Average pain produced was 3.3/10 on a 0-10 verbal pain scale. Pain was described generally as a deep, dull ache, and pressure sensation. Pain patterns were located superficial to the injected joint, with only the right T2 injections showing referred pain 2 segments cranially and caudally. No chest wall, upper extremity or pseudovisceral pains were reported. This study provides preliminary data of the pain referral patterns of costotransverse joints. Further research is needed to compare these findings with those elicited from symptomatic subjects.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Australia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 125 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 24 18%
Student > Master 22 17%
Student > Postgraduate 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 31 23%
Unknown 11 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Sports and Recreations 3 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 12 9%

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 24 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,877,401
of 14,173,817 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#857
of 2,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,436
of 262,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,173,817 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,827 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 262,529 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them