↓ Skip to main content

Nefopam for the prevention of perioperative shivering: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Nefopam for the prevention of perioperative shivering: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12871-015-0068-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Meng Lv, Xuetao Wang, Wendong Qu, Mengjie Liu, Yuelan Wang

Abstract

Shivering is a frequent complication following surgery and anaesthesia. A large variety of studies have been reported that nefopam may be efficacious for the prevention and treatment of perioperative shivering. Regrettably, there is still no conclusion of the efficacy and safety of nefopam for the prevention of perioperative shivering. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the efficacy of nefopam for the prevention of perioperative shivering in patients undergoing different types of anaesthesia compared with placebo group and other active interventions. PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials were systematically searched for potentially relevant trials. Trial quality and extracted data were evaluated by two authors independently. Dichotomous data on the absence of shivering was extracted and analysed by using relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI). Continuous outcome was abstracted and analysed by using weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95 % confidence interval (CI). Outcome data was analysed by using random effect model or fixed effect model in accordance with heterogeneity. Compared with placebo, prophylactic administration of nefopam significantly reduced the risk of perioperative shivering not only in the patients under general anaesthesia but also neuraxial anaesthesia (RR 0.08; 95 % CI 0.05-0.13). As compared with clonidine, nefopam was more efficacious in the prevention of perioperative shivering (RR 0.34; 95 % CI 0.17-0.70). Nefopam has no influence on the extubation time (WMD 0.92; 95 % CI -0.15-1.99). Our analysis has demonstrated that nefopam is associated with the decrease of risk of perioperative shivering following anaesthesia without influencing the extubation time.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 10 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Mathematics 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 11 37%
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 13 July 2022.
All research outputs
#20,302,490
of 24,960,237 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#1,106
of 1,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,242
of 271,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#15
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,960,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 271,844 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.