↓ Skip to main content

Liposomal bupivacaine administration is not superior to traditional periarticular injection for postoperative pain management following total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized…

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 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
Liposomal bupivacaine administration is not superior to traditional periarticular injection for postoperative pain management following total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13018-023-03699-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jian-Jiun Chen, Yun-Che Wu, Jun-Sing Wang, Cheng-Hung Lee

Abstract

Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is a relatively new formulation that slowly releases bupivacaine to extend its efficacy for 72-96 h. It is inconclusive whether LB offers better efficacy than traditional periarticular injection (TPAI) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched using electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Review Manager 5.4.1 was used for calculations. Sixteen RCTs were included in this meta-analysis. LB had better effects on morphine consumption equivalents during postoperative 24-48 h than TPAI. No significant difference was observed in pain relief, incidence of nausea and vomiting, or length of hospital stay between the two groups. LB administration during TKA is not superior to TPAI. Studies with larger sample size are needed to validate our findings. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022355094.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 1 17%
Unknown 5 83%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 17%
Unknown 5 83%
Attention Score in Context

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 16 March 2023.
All research outputs
#15,843,787
of 23,544,006 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#693
of 1,460 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,394
of 345,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#16
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,544,006 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,460 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 345,571 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.