↓ Skip to main content

Lumbar sympathectomy techniques for critical lower limb ischaemia due to non-reconstructable peripheral arterial disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 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
Lumbar sympathectomy techniques for critical lower limb ischaemia due to non-reconstructable peripheral arterial disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011519.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Veena KL Karanth, Tulasi Kota Karanth, Laxminarayan Karanth

Abstract

Critical lower limb ischaemia (CLI) is a manifestation of peripheral arterial disease (PAD) that is seen in patients with typical chronic ischaemic rest pain or patients with ischaemic skin lesions - ulcers or gangrene - for longer than 2 weeks. Critical lower limb ischaemia is the most severe form of PAD, and interventions to improve arterial perfusion become necessary. Although surgical bypass has been the gold standard for revascularisation, the extent or the site of disease may be such that the artery cannot be reconstructed or bypassed. These patients require other modalities of treatment, for example, vasodilatation by drugs or lumbar sympathectomy to relieve pain at rest and to avoid amputations. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials is required to evaluate the effects of lumbar sympathectomy in treating patients with CLI due to non-reconstructable PAD. The objective of this review is to assess the effects of lumbar sympathectomy by open, laparoscopic and percutaneous methods compared with no treatment or compared with any other method of lumbar sympathectomy in patients with CLI due to non-reconstructable PAD. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (January 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 12). In addition, the CIS searched clinical trials databases for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any of the treatment modalities of lumbar sympathectomy, such as open, laparoscopic and chemical percutaneous methods, with no treatment or with any other method of lumbar sympathectomy for CLI due to non-reconstructable PAD were eligible. To decrease the bias of including participants that may be incorrectly diagnosed with CLI, review authors defined CLI as persistently recurring ischaemic rest pain requiring regular analgesia for more than two weeks, or ulceration or gangrene of the foot or toes, attributable to objectively proven arterial occlusive disease by measurement of ankle pressure of < 50 mmHg or toe pressure < 30 mmHg. We defined non-reconstructable PAD as a resting ankle brachial index (ABI) < 0.9 when no reasonable open surgical or endovascular revascularisation treatment option is available, as determined by individual trial vascular specialists. Two review authors independently assessed studies identified for potential inclusion in the review. We planned to conduct data collection and analysis in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions. We identified no studies that met the predefined inclusion criteria. To decrease the bias of including participants who may be incorrectly diagnosed with CLI, we based our inclusion criteria on objective tests, as described above. The randomised trials identified by the literature search were performed before such objective criteria for selection were applied and therefore were not eligible for inclusion in the review. We identified no RCTs assessing effects of lumbar sympathectomy by open, laparoscopic and percutaneous methods compared with no treatment or compared with any other method of lumbar sympathectomy in patients with CLI due to non-reconstructable PAD. High-quality studies are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ukraine 1 2%
Unknown 40 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 10 24%
Student > Bachelor 7 17%
Student > Master 7 17%
Other 5 12%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 9 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 56%
Unspecified 10 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 2 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,524,957
of 13,628,925 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,344
of 10,688 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,563
of 376,784 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#100
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,628,925 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,688 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 376,784 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.