| Title |
The effect of an increased pulse width on the pattern of motor response (unilateral versus bilateral) during the Tsui test in labouring parturients: a randomized crossover trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12630-017-0977-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Zakus, Ricardo Bittencourt, Kristi Downey, Ban C. H. Tsui, Jose C. A. Carvalho |
| Abstract |
The typical response to the Tsui test performed via an epidural catheter placed in the lumbar area is the unilateral motor response of the lower limbs. Studies show that longer pulse widths can stimulate peripheral nerves at a lower threshold current from a farther distance. Therefore, we designed a study to test the hypothesis that epidural catheter stimulation with a 1.0-msec pulse width would increase the incidence of bilateral motor response in parturients when compared with stimulation with a 0.1-msec pulse width. Parturients requesting epidural analgesia were recruited into this randomized crossover study. The Tsui test was performed at both pulse widths before and five minutes after an epidural test dose of 2% lidocaine 3 mL. The primary outcome was the motor response pattern (either unilateral or bilateral) to the epidural catheter stimulation at baseline. Twenty women were recruited for the study, which was stopped early due to futility. The rates of unilateral motor response in the 0.1-msec (18/20) and the 1-msec (18/20) group were both 90% (rate difference, 0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.3 to 0.3; P = 1.0). The mean (SD) current required to elicit a motor response at baseline was 4.2 (2.6) mA in the 0.1-msec group and 1.7 (1.1) mA in the 1-msec group (mean difference, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.3; P < 0.001). The motor response pattern following the stimulation of a lumbar epidural catheter with pulse widths of 0.1 msec or 1 msec is similar and typically unilateral. The threshold current is lower with the 1-msec pulse width stimulus. www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02762149. Registered 2 May 2016. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 25% |
| Canada | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 6 | 23% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
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 23 June 2018.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
#2,284
of 2,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,444
of 325,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie
#39
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 2,878 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 325,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.