↓ Skip to main content

Hematoma block or procedural sedation and analgesia, which is the most effective method of anesthesia in reduction of displaced distal radius fracture?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, March 2018
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 (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 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
Hematoma block or procedural sedation and analgesia, which is the most effective method of anesthesia in reduction of displaced distal radius fracture?
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13018-018-0772-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ping-Tao Tseng, Tsai-Hsueh Leu, Yen-Wen Chen, Yu-Pin Chen

Abstract

Procedure sedation and analgesia (PSA) is often used to alleviate discomfort and to facilitate fracture reduction for patients with distal radius fracture in emergency departments and clinics, but risks of respiratory distress and needs for different levels of monitoring under PSA are still under concern. Hematoma block (HB) is a simple alternative method of providing rapid pain relief during reduction of distal radius fracture. However, there is still in lack of strong evidence to promote HB over PSA in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to compare HB and PSA for adult and pediatric patients during reduction of displaced distal radius fracture to identify the level of pain relief, frequency of adverse effects (AEs), and reduction failure. The PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies comparing HB or PSA in distal radius fracture reduction. The search revealed four randomized controlled trials and one non-randomized trial, which included two studies of pediatric subjects and three studies of adult subjects. Subgroup meta-analysis for adult and pediatric groups were specifically performed according to age difference to avoid potential bias. In the adult group, the effect of HB on post-reduction pain severity was better than that of PSA with significant heterogeneity (Hedges' g - 0.600, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.170 to - 0.029, p = 0.039), although there was no difference on the pain severity during reduction between these two groups with significant heterogeneity (Hedges' g 0.356, 95% CI - 1.101 to 1.812, p = 0.632). In the pediatric group, the treatment effect on pain severity was significantly better by HB than that by PSA but without significant heterogeneity (Hedges' g - 0.402, 95% CI - 0.718 to - 0.085, p = 0.013, I 2  < 0.001%). Most of the reported adverse effects (AEs) include nausea, vomiting, and respiratory distress developed in adult patients treated by PSA. The rates of reported AEs did not significantly differ between HB and PSA in the pediatric group. Additionally, final outcomes of reduction failure did not significantly differ between HB and PSA in both adult and pediatric groups. Hematoma block is a safe and effective alternative of anesthesia in reduction of distal radius fracture without inferior pain relief compared with PSA among adult and pediatric patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 15%
Student > Master 9 15%
Other 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Psychology 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 17 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,570,729
of 21,340,745 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#61
of 1,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,736
of 296,718 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,340,745 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,283 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. 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 296,718 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them