↓ Skip to main content

Local anesthetic injections with or without steroid for chronic non-cancer pain: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2016
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
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Local anesthetic injections with or without steroid for chronic non-cancer pain: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0190-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harsha Shanthanna, Jason W. Busse, Lehana Thabane, James Paul, Rachel Couban, Harman Choudhary, Alka Kaushal, Erica Suzumura, Isabel Kim, Prathiba Harsha

Abstract

Steroids are often combined with local anesthetic (LA) and injected to reduce pain associated with various chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) complaints. The biological rationale behind injection of a steroid solution is unclear, and it is uncertain whether the addition of steroids offers any additional benefits over injection of LA alone. We propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence for using steroids and LA vs. LA alone in the treatment of CNCP. An experienced librarian will perform a comprehensive search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases with search terms for clinical indications, LA, and steroid agents. We will review bibliographies of all relevant published reviews in the last 5 years for additional studies. Eligible trials will be published in English and randomly allocate patients with CNCP to treatment with steroid and LA injection therapy or injection with LA alone. We will use the guidelines published by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to inform the outcomes that we collect and present. Teams of reviewers will independently and in duplicate assess trial eligibility, abstract data, and assess risk of bias among eligible trials. We will prioritize intention to treat analysis and, when possible, pool outcomes across trials using random effects models. We will report our findings as risk differences, weighted mean differences, or standardized mean differences for individual outcomes. Further, to ensure interpretability of our results, we will present risk differences and measures of relative effect for pain reduction based on anchor-based minimally important clinical differences. We will conduct a priori defined subgroup analyses and use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to evaluate the certainty of the evidence on an outcome-by-outcome basis. Our review will evaluate both the effectiveness and the adverse events associated with steroid plus LA vs. LA alone for CNCP, evaluate the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach, and prioritize patient-important outcomes guided by IMMPACT recommendations. Our results will facilitate evidence-based management of patients with chronic non-cancer pain and identify key areas for future research. PROSPERO CRD42015020614.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 12%
Researcher 8 11%
Other 5 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 22 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 January 2017.
All research outputs
#15,158,693
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,574
of 2,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,394
of 399,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#45
of 71 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,020 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 399,722 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 71 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.