↓ Skip to main content

CMAJ

Article Metrics

Anticonvulsants in the treatment of low back pain and lumbar radicular pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in CMAJ, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#21 of 5,601)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
13 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
623 tweeters
facebook
11 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Anticonvulsants in the treatment of low back pain and lumbar radicular pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
CMAJ, July 2018
DOI 10.1503/cmaj.171333
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oliver Enke, Heather A. New, Charles H. New, Stephanie Mathieson, Andrew J. McLachlan, Jane Latimer, Christopher G. Maher, C.-W. Christine Lin

Abstract

The use of anticonvulsants (e.g., gabapentin, pregabalin) to treat low back pain has increased substantially in recent years despite limited supporting evidence. We aimed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of anticonvulsants in the treatment of low back pain and lumbar radicular pain compared with placebo. A search was conducted in 5 databases for studies comparing an anticonvulsant to placebo in patients with nonspecific low back pain, sciatica or neurogenic claudication of any duration. The outcomes were self-reported pain, disability and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale, and quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Data were pooled and treatment effects were quantified using mean differences for continuous and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes. Nine trials compared topiramate, gabapentin or pregabalin to placebo in 859 unique participants. Fourteen of 15 comparisons found anticonvulsants were not effective to reduce pain or disability in low back pain or lumbar radicular pain; for example, there was high-quality evidence of no effect of gabapentinoids versus placebo on chronic low back pain in the short term (pooled mean difference [MD] -0.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.8 to 0.7) or for lumbar radicular pain in the immediate term (pooled MD -0.1, 95% CI -0.7 to 0.5). The lack of efficacy is accompanied by increased risk of adverse events from use of gabapentinoids, for which the level of evidence is high. There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that anticonvulsants are ineffective for treatment of low back pain or lumbar radicular pain. There is high-quality evidence that gabapentinoids have a higher risk for adverse events. PROSPERO-CRD42016046363.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 623 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 22%
Researcher 6 19%
Student > Master 6 19%
Lecturer 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Other 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 72%
Unspecified 5 16%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 555. 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 October 2018.
All research outputs
#10,467
of 12,136,058 outputs
Outputs from CMAJ
#21
of 5,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#603
of 245,822 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CMAJ
#2
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,136,058 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 5,601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. 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 245,822 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 108 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 98% of its contemporaries.