↓ Skip to main content

Air versus saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 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
Air versus saline in the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008938.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro L Antibas, Paulo do Nascimento Junior, Leandro G Braz, João Vitor Pereira Doles, Norma SP Módolo, Regina El Dib

Abstract

The success of epidural anaesthesia depends on correct identification of the epidural space. For several decades, the decision of whether to use air or physiological saline during the loss of resistance technique for identification of the epidural space has been governed by the personal experience of the anaesthesiologist. Epidural block remains one of the main regional anaesthesia techniques. It is used for surgical anaesthesia, obstetrical analgesia, postoperative analgesia and treatment of chronic pain and as a complement to general anaesthesia. The sensation felt by the anaesthesiologist from the syringe plunger with loss of resistance is different when air is compared with saline (fluid). Frequently fluid allows a rapid change from resistance to non-resistance and increased movement of the plunger. However, the ideal technique for identification of the epidural space remains unclear.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Turkey 2 1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 151 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 15%
Student > Bachelor 20 13%
Student > Master 19 12%
Other 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 39 25%
Unknown 24 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Unspecified 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 31 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 April 2020.
All research outputs
#4,560,682
of 15,140,715 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,369
of 11,116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,738
of 193,938 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#152
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,140,715 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,116 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 193,938 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 209 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.