↓ Skip to main content

Single administration of intra-articular bupivacaine in arthroscopic knee surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2015
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
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 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
Single administration of intra-articular bupivacaine in arthroscopic knee surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12891-015-0477-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qi-Bin Sun, Shi-Dong Liu, Qin-Jun Meng, Hua-Zheng Qu, Zheng Zhang

Abstract

Single administration of intra-articular (IA) bupivacaine for pain relief after arthroscopic knee surgery is effective, but its active duration and dose-response relationship is unclear. We conducted this meta-analysis to summarize all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs), thus providing the most recent information on the safety and efficacy of single-administration IA bupivacaine for pain relief after arthroscopic knee surgery, and to determine whether a dose-response relationship exists.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
France 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 63 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Student > Master 7 11%
Researcher 6 9%
Other 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 21 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 44%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 26 39%
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 19 March 2015.
All research outputs
#15,321,665
of 22,788,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#2,454
of 4,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,065
of 357,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#29
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,788,370 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 4,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 357,412 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.