↓ Skip to main content

Gabapentin in procedure-specific postoperative pain management – preplanned subgroup analyses from a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Gabapentin in procedure-specific postoperative pain management – preplanned subgroup analyses from a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12871-017-0373-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Louise Fabritius, Anja Geisler, Pernille Lykke Petersen, Jørn Wetterslev, Ole Mathiesen, Jørgen Berg Dahl

Abstract

It has been argued that postoperative pain treatment should be "procedure-specific", since different analgesics may have specific effects dependent on the surgical procedure. The aim of the present subgroup analysis was to compare the beneficial and harmful effects of perioperative gabapentin treatment in different surgical procedures. Relevant databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing gabapentin versus placebo. Two authors independently screened titles and abstracts, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were differences in 24-h morphine consumption, and serious adverse events (SAE) between surgical procedures. These subgroup analyses were predefined in a PRISMA compliant systematic review registered at PROSPERO (ID: CRD42013006538). It was predefined that conclusions should primarily be based on trials classified as overall low risk of bias. Seventy-four RCTs with 5645 patients were included, assessing benefit and harm in cholecystectomy, hysterectomy, mastectomy, and arthroplasty surgery, spinal surgery, and thoracic surgery. Only eight of 74 trials were classified as overall low risk of bias limiting our ability to conclude on the estimates in most meta-analyses. The differences between surgical procedures in these trials were not statistically significant when tested for subgroup differences. Fifteen trials with 1377 patients reported a total of 59 SAEs, most of which were observed in the thoracic surgery group. Both beneficial and harmful effects in these subgroup analyses were influenced by bias and insufficient data, limiting conclusions. With these limitations, we could not adequately test for differences in beneficial or harmful outcomes between six surgical subgroups undergoing perioperative gabapentin treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 73 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 19%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Other 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 13 18%
Unknown 21 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 21 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 02 May 2021.
All research outputs
#3,821,168
of 22,982,639 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#129
of 1,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,792
of 316,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#4
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,982,639 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,506 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 316,843 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.