↓ Skip to main content

Anaesthetic injection versus ischemic compression for the pain relief of abdominal wall trigger points in women with chronic pelvic pain

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, December 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

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 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
Anaesthetic injection versus ischemic compression for the pain relief of abdominal wall trigger points in women with chronic pelvic pain
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12871-015-0155-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mary L. L. S. Montenegro, Carolina A. Braz, Julio C. Rosa-e-Silva, Francisco J. Candido-dos-Reis, Antonio A. Nogueira, Omero B. Poli-Neto

Abstract

Chronic pelvic pain is a common condition among women, and 10 to 30 % of causes originate from the abdominal wall, and are associated with trigger points. Although little is known about their pathophysiology, variable methods have been practiced clinically. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of local anaesthetic injections versus ischemic compression via physical therapy for pain relief of abdominal wall trigger points in women with chronic pelvic pain. We conducted a parallel group randomized trial including 30 women with chronic pelvic pain with abdominal wall trigger points. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two intervention groups. One group received an injection of 2 mL 0.5 % lidocaine without a vasoconstrictor into a trigger point. In the other group, ischemic compression via physical therapy was administered at the trigger points three times, with each session lasting for 60 s, and a rest period of 30 s between applications. Both treatments were administered during one weekly session for four weeks. Our primary outcomes were satisfactory clinical response rates and percentages of pain relief. Our secondary outcomes are pain threshold and tolerance at the trigger points. All subjects were evaluated at baseline and 1, 4, and 12 weeks after the interventions. The study was conducted at a tertiary hospital that was associated with a university providing assistance predominantly to working class women who were treated by the public health system. Clinical response rates and pain relief were significantly better at 1, 4, and 12 weeks for those receiving local anaesthetic injections than ischemic compression via physical therapy. The pain relief of women treated with local anaesthetic injections progressively improved at 1, 4, and 12 weeks after intervention. In contrast, women treated with ischemic compression did not show considerable changes in pain relief after intervention. In the local anaesthetic injection group, pain threshold and tolerance improved with time in the absence of significant differences between groups. Lidocaine injection seems to be better for reducing the severity of chronic pelvic pain secondary to abdominal wall trigger points compared to ischemic compression via physical therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00628355 . Date of registration: February 25, 2008.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 107 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 41 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 23%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 44 41%
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 15 May 2019.
All research outputs
#15,351,145
of 22,834,308 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#664
of 1,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#227,253
of 387,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#15
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,834,308 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 1,496 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 387,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.