↓ Skip to main content

Factors Associated With Risk of Neurologic Complications After Peripheral Nerve Blocks

Overview of attention for article published in Anesthesia and analgesia, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Factors Associated With Risk of Neurologic Complications After Peripheral Nerve Blocks
Published in
Anesthesia and analgesia, February 2017
DOI 10.1213/ane.0000000000001804
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The onset of neurologic complications after regional anesthesia is a complex process and may result from an interaction of host, agent, and environmental risk factors. The purpose of this systematic review was examine the qualitative evidence relating to various risk factors implicated in neurologic dysfunction after peripheral nerve block (PNB). The MEDLINE, OVID, and EMBASE databases were primary sources for literature. Cochrane, LILACS, DARE, IndMed, ERIC, NHS, and HTA via Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD; York University) databases were searched for additional unique results. Randomized controlled studies, case-control studies, cohort studies, retrospective reviews, and case reports/case series reporting neurologic outcomes after PNB were included. Relevant, good-quality systematic reviews were also eligible. Human and animal studies evaluating factors important for neurologic outcomes were assessed separately. Information on study design, outcomes, and quality was extracted and reviewed independently by the 2 review authors. An overall rating of the quality of evidence was assigned using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. Relevant full-text articles were separated based on type (prospective, retrospective, and nonhuman studies). Strengths of association were defined as high, moderate, inconclusive, or inadequate based on study quality and direction of association. The evidence from 77 human studies was reviewed to assess various host, agent, and environmental factors that have been implicated as possible risks. Most of the available evidence regarding the injurious effects of the 3 cardinal agents of mechanical insult, pressure, and neurotoxicity was extracted from animal studies (42 studies). Among the risk factors investigated in humans, block type had a strong association with neurologic outcome. Intraneural injection, which seems to occur commonly with PNBs, showed an inconsistent direction of association. Measures meant to increase precision and ostensibly reduce the occurrence of complications such as currently available guidance techniques showed little effect on the incidence of neurologic complications. Recovery from neurologic injury appears to be worse in patients with pre-existing risk factors. Categorization and definition of neurologic complication varied among studies, making synthesis of evidence difficult. Also, a significant portion of the evidence surrounding neurologic injury associated with PNB comes from animal or laboratory studies, the results of which are difficult to translate to clinical scenarios. Of the human studies, few had an a priori design to test associations between a specific risk factor exposure and resultant neurologic sequelae. A few risk factor associations were identified in human studies, but overall quality of evidence was low. Much of the evidence for risk factors comes from animal models and case reports. The final neurologic outcome seems to represent the complex interaction of the host, agent, and the environment.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Unknown 127 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 16 12%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 35 27%
Unknown 35 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 36 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 18 August 2022.
All research outputs
#7,270,156
of 34,360,257 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#2,612
of 10,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,592
of 470,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#39
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,257 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,893 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. 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 470,369 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 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 70% of its contemporaries.