↓ Skip to main content

Comparative outcomes of combined corticosteroid with low volume compared to high volume of local anesthetic in subacromial injection for impingement syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis of…

Overview of attention for article published in European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#10 of 883)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
28 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Comparative outcomes of combined corticosteroid with low volume compared to high volume of local anesthetic in subacromial injection for impingement syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs
Published in
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00590-017-2056-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sermsak Sumanont, Manusak Boonard, Ekachot Peradhammanon, Alisara Arirachakaran, Pattanapong Suwankomonkul, Worawit Oungbumrungpan, Jatupon Kongtharvonskul

Abstract

Subacromial impingement syndrome (SIS) is one of the most frequent pathologies of the shoulder, which may cause serious restriction of daily activities and lifestyle changes. Corticosteroid injection (CI) into the subacromial space is a palliative treatment option. Currently, there have been no studies that compare between the different volumes of CI injection. We have conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to answer our specific study questions: Are high volume (< 5 ml) better than low volume (≥ 5 ml) of CI injection with respect to pain reduction? This systematic review was conducted according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Relevant studies were identified from Medline and Scopus from inception to May 11, 2017 that reported American shoulder and elbow surgeons (ASES) function score, pain visual analog score (VAS), and postoperative complications of either group. Fifteen studies were included for the analysis of high volume (more than or equal 5 ml), and 5 studies were included for analysis of low volume (less than 5 ml). Overall, there were 1101 patients (732 in the high-volume group and 369 in the low-volume group). A pooling of mean VAS and ASES function score was (N = 557) 2.02 (95% CI 1.52, 2.53), (N = 190) 82.59 (95% CI 76.92, 88.27) in high-volume group and (N = 179) 2.60 (95% CI 1.94, 3.26), (N = 95) 84.65 (95% CI 81.64, 86.82) in low-volume group, respectively. The unstandardized mean difference of ASES and VAS of high volume was - 0.58 (95% confidence interval (CI): - 1.38, 0.22) and - 2.06 (95% CI - 8.35, 4.23) scores lower than low-volume CI in SIS patients, but without statistical significance. A total of 11 studies in the high-volume group and 4 studies in the low-volume group reported adverse effects. The total complication rate per patient was 6.2% (2.3, 10.1%) in the high-volume group and 11.7% (0.3, 12%) in the low-volume group (p = 0.091). No significant differences were noted for complications. In subacromial impingement syndrome, the corticosteroid injection had acceptable pain and functional outcomes. Higher volume had a lower ASES, VAS, and risk of having complication when compared to lower volume. However, there are no statistically significant differences between groups. Larger, randomized noninferiority or equivalent trial studies are needed to confirm these findings as the current literature is still insufficient. Level of evidence I.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 14%
Other 8 12%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 23 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 14%
Sports and Recreations 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 24 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 20 November 2021.
All research outputs
#1,632,845
of 23,057,470 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#10
of 883 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,173
of 324,937 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,057,470 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 883 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 324,937 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them