↓ Skip to main content

Local versus general anaesthesia for adults undergoing pars plana vitrectomy surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Local versus general anaesthesia for adults undergoing pars plana vitrectomy surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009936.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Licina, Sharan Sidhu, Jing Xie, Crispin Wan

Abstract

Vitrectomy surgery is one of the commonest ophthalmic procedures performed across the world. It may be performed using general or local anaesthesia encompassing regional or topical anaesthesia depending on a number of factors, including patient suitability, and patient, surgeon or anaesthetist preference. There have so far been no evidence-based recommendations on the best form of anaesthesia for this intervention. There is no clear collated evidence base as to the best type of anaesthesia to reduce harm, and provide best surgical conditions and optimal outcome for patients. To compare local with general anaesthesia for adults undergoing pars plana vitrectomy. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library and the reference lists of updated studies on the 25th of July 2016; MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1972 to July 2016) and Embase via Ovid SP (1972 to July 2016). In addition we searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) in July 2016. We searched the proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) up to July 2016 for information about other relevant studies.We also searched appropriate databases for ongoing reviews. We did not apply any language restriction. We assessed the search as up-to-date on the 25th of July 2016. We planned to include all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving comparison of different modalities of local anaesthesia with general anaesthesia for pars plana vitrectomy. We considered the following different modalities of local anaesthesia: sub-Tenon's anaesthesia, retrobulbar anaesthesia, topical anaesthesia, peribulbar anaesthesia. We planned to include cluster-randomized controlled trials. We excluded quasi-RCT trials. Two review authors conducted independent searches and assessed identified studies for inclusion according to the prespecified selection criteria. Two review authors assessed trial quality and planned to extract the data. We found no eligible studies that met our inclusion criteria and were therefore unable to perform a meta-analysis or conduct a methodological quality assessment. This systematic review failed to locate relevant clinical evidence to support or refute a pars plana vitrectomy performed with various modalities of local anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia. Good-quality clinical trials are needed to define the role of local versus general anaesthesia for pars plana vitrectomy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 10 26%
Student > Master 9 24%
Other 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 37%
Unspecified 14 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Psychology 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 3 8%

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 25 January 2019.
All research outputs
#7,644,726
of 13,272,830 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,411
of 10,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,601
of 265,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,272,830 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 265,554 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.