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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparative addition of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl to intrathecal bupivacaine in orthopedic procedure in lower limbs
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Anesthesiology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12871-018-0531-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Poupak Rahimzadeh, Seyed Hamid Reza Faiz, Farnad Imani, Pooya Derakhshan, Saeed Amniati |
| Abstract |
Spinal block is a common procedure for lower limbs surgery. Fentanyl, a synthetic opioid and dexmedetomidine, a selective α2 agonist have been used as adjuvants in spinal anesthesia to prolong intraoperative and postoperative analgesia. The aim of current study is to compare the efficacy of dexmedetomidine and fentanyl added to intrathecal bupivacaine in orthopedic procedures in lower limbs. In this randomized clinical trial, 90 patients undergoing elective lower limb surgeries were randomly allocated to three groups. Via intrathecal approach, the patients received 2.5 ml hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.5% plus 5 micrograms dexmedetomidine (BD group), 25 micrograms fentanyl (BF group) or 0.5 ml normal saline (BN group), respectively. Time to reach the complete motor block, the highest sensory level, regression from block, analgesic request and duration of the drug effect, hemodynamic changes and side effects were compared between the groups. There was no significant difference between the groups regrading time to reach complete motor block, but time to reach the highest sensory level was shorter in group BD than group BF (6.28 ± 1.75 vs. 7.17 ± 1.45, p = 0.03). Group BD had significantly lower mean of NRS 6 h after operation (1.90 ± 0.84 vs. 6.16 ± 1.44 vs. 6.30 ± 1.17, p < 0.001) and longer duration to regress to Bromage 0 (331.60 ± 73.96 vs. 185.56 ± 35.87 vs. 147.03 ± 33.05 min, p < 0.001), to analgesic request (496.63 ± 70.19 vs. 296.33 ± 44.83 vs. 221.83 ± 22.26 min, p < 0.001), to regress two sensory levels (149.00 ± 23.17 vs. 88.90 ± 12.85 vs. 69.33 ± 6.67 min, p < 0.001) and to regress to S1 (560.53 ± 81.86 vs. 329.83 ± 44.10 vs. 241.83 ± 22.26 min, p < 0.001). Serial changes in SBP (p = 0.006), DBP (p = 0.03) and HR (p = 0.002) in group BF were significantly higher than the other two groups. The three groups had comparable side effects. Using dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to bupivacaine for spinal anesthesia in lower limb surgeries has longer duration of sensory and motor block and longer postoperative analgesia. IRCT registration number: IRCT2017041010599N15 , 24 May 2017. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 2 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Italy | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 102 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 9% |
| Researcher | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 17 | 17% |
| Unknown | 47 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 47 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 12 March 2019.
All research outputs
#7,322,668
of 23,088,369 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#300
of 1,516 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,516
of 329,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#8
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,088,369 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,516 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 329,353 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.