↓ Skip to main content

Optimal pain management for radical prostatectomy surgery: what is the evidence?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Anesthesiology, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Optimal pain management for radical prostatectomy surgery: what is the evidence?
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12871-015-0137-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Grish P. Joshi, Thomas Jaschinski, Francis Bonnet, Henrik Kehlet, on behalf of the PROSPECT collaboration

Abstract

Increase in the diagnosis of prostate cancer has increased the incidence of radical prostatectomy. However, the literature assessing pain therapy for this procedure has not been systematically evaluated. Thus, optimal pain therapy for patients undergoing radical prostatectomy remains controversial. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies assessing the effects of analgesic and anesthetic interventions on pain after radical prostatectomy. All searches were conducted in October 2012 and updated in June 2015. Most treatments studied improved pain relief and/or reduced opioid requirements. However, there were significant differences in the study designs and the variables evaluated, precluding quantitative analysis and consensus recommendations. This systematic review reveals that there is a lack of evidence to develop an optimal pain management protocol in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Most studies assessed unimodal analgesic approaches rather than a multimodal technique. There is a need for more procedure-specific studies comparing pain and analgesic requirements for open and minimally invasive surgical procedures. Finally, while we wait for appropriate procedure specific evidence from publication of adequate studies assessing optimal pain management after radical prostatectomy, we propose a basic analgesic guideline.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 18%
Other 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 18 22%
Unknown 16 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 19 23%
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 20 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,557,505
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Anesthesiology
#625
of 1,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,161
of 288,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Anesthesiology
#16
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 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 1,574 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 288,063 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 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.