↓ Skip to main content

The RESPITE trial: remifentanil intravenously administered patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) versus pethidine intramuscular injection for pain relief in labour: study protocol for a randomised…

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
130 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
The RESPITE trial: remifentanil intravenously administered patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) versus pethidine intramuscular injection for pain relief in labour: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13063-016-1708-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew Wilson, Christine MacArthur, Fang Gao Smith, Leanne Homer, Kelly Handley, Jane Daniels

Abstract

The commonest opioid used for pain relief in labour is pethidine (meperidine); however, its effectiveness has long been challenged and the drug has known side effects including maternal sedation, nausea and potential transfer across the placenta to the foetus. Over a third of women receiving pethidine require an epidural due to inadequate pain relief. Epidural analgesia increases the risk of an instrumental vaginal delivery and its associated effects. Therefore, there is a clear need for a safe, effective, alternative analgesic to pethidine. Evidence suggests that remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) reduces epidural conversion rates compared to pethidine; however, no trial has yet investigated this as a primary endpoint. We are, therefore, comparing pethidine intramuscular injection to remifentanil PCA in a randomised controlled trial. Women in established labour, requesting systemic opioid pain relief, will be randomised to either intravenously administered remifentanil PCA (intervention) or pethidine intramuscular injection (control) in an unblinded, 1:1 individual randomised trial. Following informed consent, 400 women in established labour, who request systemic opioid pain relief, from NHS Trusts across England will undergo a minimised randomisation by a computer or automated telephone system to either pethidine or remifentanil. In order to balance the groups this minimisation is based on four parameters; parity (nulliparous versus multiparous), maternal age (<20, 20 < 30, 30 < 40, 40+ years), ethnicity (South Asian (Pakistani/Indian/Bangladeshi) versus Other) and induced versus spontaneous labour. The effectiveness of pain relief provided by each technique will be recorded every 30 min after time zero, until epidural placement, delivery or transfer to theatre, quantified by Visual Analogue Scale. Incidence of maternal side effects including sedation, delivery mode, foetal distress requiring delivery, neonatal status at delivery and rate of initiation of breastfeeding within the first hour of birth will also be recorded. Maternal satisfaction with her childbirth experience will be determined by a postpartum questionnaire prior to discharge from the delivery ward. The RESPITE trial's primary outcome is the proportion of women who have an epidural placed for pain relief in labour in each arm. Current Controlled Trials registration number: ISRCTN29654603 . Registered on 23 July 2013.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 tweeters 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 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 130 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 14%
Researcher 18 14%
Student > Master 18 14%
Other 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 35 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 17%
Psychology 11 8%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 43 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 22 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,807,878
of 17,366,233 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#671
of 4,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,260
of 397,385 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#73
of 436 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,366,233 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 397,385 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 436 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.