↓ Skip to main content

Psychological interventions for acute pain after open heart surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 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 (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
Psychological interventions for acute pain after open heart surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009984.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne Ziehm, Jenny Rosendahl, Jürgen Barth, Bernhard M Strauss, Anja Mehnert, Susan Koranyi

Abstract

This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2014. Acute postoperative pain is one of the most disturbing complaints in open heart surgery, and is associated with a risk of negative consequences. Several trials investigated the effects of psychological interventions to reduce acute postoperative pain and improve the course of physical and psychological recovery of participants undergoing open heart surgery. To compare the efficacy of psychological interventions as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone or standard care plus attention control in adults undergoing open heart surgery for pain, pain medication, psychological distress, mobility, and time to extubation. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and PsycINFO for eligible studies up to February 2017. We used the 'related articles' and 'cited by' options of eligible studies to identify additional relevant studies. We checked lists of references of relevant articles and previous reviews. We searched the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Full Text Database, ClinicalTrials and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify any unpublished material or ongoing trials. We also contacted the authors of primary studies to identify any unpublished material. In addition, we wrote to all leading heart centres in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria to check whether they were aware of any ongoing trials. Randomised controlled trials comparing psychological interventions as an adjunct to standard care versus standard care alone or standard care plus attention in adults undergoing open heart surgery. Two review authors (SZ and SK) independently assessed trials for eligibility, estimated the risk of bias and extracted all data. We calculated effect sizes for each comparison (Hedges' g) and meta-analysed data using a random-effects model. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created 'Summary of findings' tables. We added six studies to this update. Overall, we included 23 studies (2669 participants).For the majority of outcomes (two-thirds), we could not perform a meta-analysis since outcomes were not measured, or data were provided by one trial only.No study reported data on the number of participants with pain intensity reduction of at least 50% from baseline. Only one study reported data on the number of participants below 30/100 mm on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in pain intensity (very low-quality evidence). Psychological interventions did not reduce pain intensity in the short-term interval (g 0.39, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.96, 2 studies, 104 participants, low-quality evidence), medium-term interval (g -0.02, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.20, 4 studies, 413 participants, moderate-quality evidence) or in the long-term interval (g 0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.30, 2 studies, 200 participants, moderate-quality evidence).No study reported data on median time to re-medication or on number of participants re-medicated. Only two studies provided data on postoperative analgesic use in the short-term interval, showing that psychological interventions did not reduce the use of analgesic medication (g 1.18, 95% CI -2.03 to 4.39, 2 studies, 104 participants, low-quality evidence). Studies revealed that psychological interventions reduced mental distress in the medium-term (g 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60, 13 studies, 1388 participants, moderate-quality evidence) and likewise in the long-term interval (g 0.32, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.53, 14 studies, 1586 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Psychological interventions did not improve mobility in the medium-term interval (g 0.23, 95% CI -0.22 to 0.67, 3 studies, 444 participants, low-quality evidence), nor in the long-term interval (g 0.09, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.28, 4 studies, 458 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Only two studies reported data on time to extubation, indicating that psychological interventions reduced the time to extubation (g 0.56, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.03, 2 studies, 154 participants, low-quality evidence).Overall, the very low to moderate quality of the body of evidence on the efficacy of psychological interventions for acute pain after open heart surgery cannot be regarded as sufficient to draw robust conclusions.Most 'Risk of bias' assessments were low or unclear. We judged selection bias (random sequence generation) and attrition bias to be mostly low risk for included studies. However, we judged the risk of selection bias (allocation concealment), performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias to be mostly unclear. In line with the conclusions of our previous review, there is a lack of evidence to support or refute psychological interventions in order to reduce postoperative pain in participants undergoing open heart surgery. We found moderate-quality evidence that psychological interventions reduced mental distress in participants undergoing open heart surgery. Given the small numbers of studies, it is not possible to draw robust conclusions on the efficacy of psychological interventions on outcomes such as analgesic use, mobility, and time to extubation respectively on adverse events or harms of psychological interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 131 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 27 20%
Student > Master 27 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Researcher 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Other 32 24%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 38%
Unspecified 32 24%
Psychology 15 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 July 2017.
All research outputs
#3,043,034
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,680
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,422
of 261,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#170
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 261,354 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.