↓ Skip to main content

International consensus on anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of basic blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia

Overview of attention for article published in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, September 2021
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#26 of 2,691)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
196 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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.
Title
International consensus on anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of basic blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia
Published in
Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, September 2021
DOI 10.1136/rapm-2021-103004
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Simeon Bowness, Amit Pawa, Lloyd Turbitt, Boyne Bellew, Nigel Bedforth, David Burckett-St Laurent, Alain Delbos, Nabil Elkassabany, Jenny Ferry, Ben Fox, James L H French, Calum Grant, Ashwani Gupta, William Harrop-Griffiths, Nat Haslam, Helen Higham, Rosemary Hogg, David F Johnston, Rachel Joyce Kearns, Sandra Kopp, Clara Lobo, Sonya McKinlay, Stavros Memtsoudis, Peter Merjavy, Eleni Moka, Madan Narayanan, Samer Narouze, J Alison Noble, David Phillips, Meg Rosenblatt, Amy Sadler, Maria Paz Sebastian, Alasdair Taylor, Athmaja Thottungal, Luis Fernando Valdés-Vilches, Thomas Volk, Simeon West, Morné Wolmarans, Jonathan Womack, Alan James Robert Macfarlane

Abstract

There is no universally agreed set of anatomical structures that must be identified on ultrasound for the performance of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) techniques. This study aimed to produce standardized recommendations for core (minimum) structures to identify during seven basic blocks. An international consensus was sought through a modified Delphi process. A long-list of anatomical structures was refined through serial review by key opinion leaders in UGRA. All rounds were conducted remotely and anonymously to facilitate equal contribution of each participant. Blocks were considered twice in each round: for "orientation scanning" (the dynamic process of acquiring the final view) and for the "block view" (which visualizes the block site and is maintained for needle insertion/injection). Strong recommendations for inclusion were made if ≥75% of participants rated a structure as "definitely include" in any round. Weak recommendations were made if >50% of participants rated a structure as "definitely include" or "probably include" for all rounds (but the criterion for "strong recommendation" was never met). Thirty-six participants (94.7%) completed all rounds. 128 structures were reviewed; a "strong recommendation" is made for 35 structures on orientation scanning and 28 for the block view. A "weak recommendation" is made for 36 and 20 structures, respectively. This study provides recommendations on the core (minimum) set of anatomical structures to identify during ultrasound scanning for seven basic blocks in UGRA. They are intended to support consistent practice, empower non-experts using basic UGRA techniques, and standardize teaching and research.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 196 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 22%
Other 4 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 5 12%
Unknown 16 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 37%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 18 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 127. 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 28 September 2024.
All research outputs
#355,449
of 26,735,240 outputs
Outputs from Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine
#26
of 2,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,778
of 442,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine
#3
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,735,240 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,691 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 442,768 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.