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 evaluation of epidural bupivacaine alone and bupivacaine combined with magnesium sulfate in providing postoperative analgesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Anesthesiology, February 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12871-020-0947-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Li-Qin Li, Mei-Dan Fang, Cong Wang, Hong-Liu Lu, Li-Xue Wang, Hong-Yu Xu, Hou-Zhong Zhang |
| Abstract |
The comparative efficacy of epidural bupivacaine alone and bupivacaine combined with magnesium sulfate in providing postoperative analgesia remains controversial. We searched Mediline (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify trials that compared epidural bupivacaine and magnesium sulfate combination (intervention) with bupivacaine alone (control). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework was used to assess the quality of evidence. Eleven studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria after screening. We found that epidural bupivacaine combined with magnesium sulfate could prolong the time for first rescue analgesics (SMD 4.96; 95% CI [2.75, 7.17], P < 0.00001, I2 = 98%), reduce the number of patients who need rescue analgesics (RR 0.38; 95% CI [0.20, 0.74], P = 0.004, I2 = 75%) and requirement for rescue analgesics (SMD -2.65; 95% CI [- 4.23, - 1.06], P = 0.001, I2 = 96%). Magnesium suifate as an adjuvant of epidural bupivacaine improved postoperative analgesia. However, we rated the quality of evidence to be very low because of high heterogeneity, imprecise of results and small sample sizes. Furthermore, further large high-quality trials are still needed to confirm the effects of magnesium sulfate on postoperative analgesia. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 32 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 16% |
| Researcher | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 February 2020.
All research outputs
#13,089,767
of 23,192,960 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#370
of 1,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,877
of 449,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#13
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,192,960 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,524 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 449,685 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.