↓ Skip to main content

First do no harm: pain relief for the peripheral venous cannulation of adults, a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
15 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
First do no harm: pain relief for the peripheral venous cannulation of adults, a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12871-016-0252-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary Bond, Louise Crathorne, Jaime Peters, Helen Coelho, Marcela Haasova, Chris Cooper, Quentin Milner, Vicki Shawyer, Christopher Hyde, Roy Powell

Abstract

Peripheral venous cannulation is an everyday practice in hospitals, which many adults find painful. However, anaesthesia for cannulation is usually only offered to children. Inadequate pain relief is not only unpleasant for patients but may cause anxiety about further treatment and deter patients from seeking medical care in the future. The aim of this study is to discover the most effective local anaesthetic for adult peripheral venous cannulation and to find out how the pain of local anaesthetic application compares with that of unattenuated cannulation. These aims are addressed through a systematic review, network meta-analysis and random-effects meta-analysis. Searching covered 12 databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1990 to August 2015. The main included study design was RCTs. The primary outcome measure is self-reported pain, measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. The systematic review found 37 includable studies, 27 of which were suitable for network meta-analysis and two for random-effects meta-analysis. The results of the network meta-analysis indicate that none of the 17 anaesthetic considered had a very high probability of being the most effective when compared to each other; 2 % lidocaine had the highest probability (44 %). When the anaesthetics were compared to no treatment, the network meta-analysis showed that again 2 % lidocaine was estimated to be the most effective (mean difference -25.42 (95 % CI -32.25, -18.57). Other members of the 'caine' family were also estimated to be more effective than no treatment as were Ametop(®), EMLA(®) and Rapydan(®) patch. The meta-analysis compared the pain of anaesthetic application with the unattenuated pain of cannulation. This found that all applications of local anaesthetic were less painful than cannulation without local anaesthetic. In particular a 1 % lidocaine injection was estimated to be -12.97 (95 % CI -15.71, -10.24) points (100 mm VAS) less painful than unattenuated cannulation. The pain of peripheral venous cannulation in adults can be successfully treated. The pain of application of any local anaesthetic is less than that of unattenuated cannulation. Local anaesthetic prior to cannulation should become normal practice and a marker of high quality care. The protocol for the larger study was registered with PROSPERO no. CRD42012002093 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 17%
Other 12 14%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 25%
Engineering 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 21 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 16 September 2021.
All research outputs
#2,653,980
of 25,571,620 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#75
of 1,713 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,219
of 333,154 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#7
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,571,620 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,713 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 333,154 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.