↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of the use of local analgesia in medically compromised children and adolescents

Overview of attention for article published in European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
A systematic review of the use of local analgesia in medically compromised children and adolescents
Published in
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s40368-017-0304-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Dougall, M. Hayes, B. Daly

Abstract

To determine if the use of routine techniques and agents for topical and injectable dental local analgesia (LA) are safe for use in medically compromised children and adolescents. Medline, Embase and Cochrane Oral Health Group's trials register, were searched electronically, supplemented by hand searching of relevant journals. RCTs, cohort studies, case-control studies, observational studies, case series, case reports, evidence based guidelines reporting on children and adolescents aged 18 years or younger with one/more pre-designated medical condition, being administered topical and/or injectable local analgesic for dental procedures using standard techniques of delivery. Outcomes were presence of adverse events which were attributable directly or indirectly to the underlying medical condition. N = 71 studies were retrieved but only three observational studies, one case series, two case reports and four evidence based guidelines met the criteria for inclusion. A disparate set of medical conditions were reported upon and sparse guidance given in these areas. Thirty-nine review articles and consensus documents provided little or no clinical data to support their recommendations. There are insufficient high quality data reporting on the use of topical and local analgesia to medically compromised children and adolescents. Apart from a known allergy to local analgesia or one of the agents, there appears to be very few absolute or relative contra-indications to the use of local analgesia in children and adolescents based on medical history. There is an urgent need for high quality studies wherever possible and appropriate, in order to improve and inform the evidence-base in this cohort.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 3 8%
Unspecified 2 6%
Researcher 2 6%
Other 9 25%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 56%
Unspecified 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 31%
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 30 June 2018.
All research outputs
#20,523,725
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#239
of 285 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,881
of 323,123 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 285 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 323,123 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.