↓ Skip to main content

Use of pethidine for percutaneous liver biopsy – a randomised, placebo-controlled, double blind study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Gastroenterology, March 2015
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 (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
Use of pethidine for percutaneous liver biopsy – a randomised, placebo-controlled, double blind study
Published in
BMC Gastroenterology, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12876-015-0264-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antony Pan, Mohammed Alansari, Ralf Lubcke, Martin Schlup, Merrilee Williams, Margaret Fraser, Sarah Buckingham, Michael Schultz

Abstract

Percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB) is the "gold standard" in the diagnosis of liver diseases. A pilot trial has shown pethidine may reduce anxiety and the need for post-procedural pain relief. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of pre-procedural pethidine. A double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to assess the need for pethidine prior to PLB. 98 patients were randomly assigned to receive either 50 mg pethidine i.v. (n = 48), or an equal volume of 0.9% normal saline (n = 50). PLB was performed with ultrasound guidance after adequate local anaesthesia with xylocaine. Patients were asked to self-evaluate pain experienced using a visual analogue score (0-10) immediately and an hour after PLB. Patients were then followed up 24 hours after the procedure to assess their pain score, retrospective pain score and willingness to have a repeat procedure. Pethidine administration resulted in significantly lower pain scores (0.60 ± 0.1 vs 1.2 ± 0.2, p = 0.006) and required less analgesia (0% vs 10%, p = 0.03) immediately after PLB in comparison to the placebo group. There was no significant difference in the pain score and analgesia requirement one hour after the procedure, the pain score at 24 hours after procedure and retrospective pain score. 94% of all patients of either group are willing to under go a repeat liver biopsy (NS). The administration of pethidine routinely prior to PLB reduces the immediate post procedural pain but has no lasting effect and does not influence the patients' decision making process for future investigations. ACTRN12614001194651 , 13 November 2014.

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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Researcher 3 8%
Lecturer 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 16 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 18 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 15 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,249,702
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from BMC Gastroenterology
#195
of 1,775 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,703
of 264,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Gastroenterology
#4
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,775 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 264,361 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 83% 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.