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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Beneficial effects of levobupivacaine regional anaesthesia on postoperative opioid induced hyperalgesia in diabetic mice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-015-0575-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne Gomez-Brouchet, Nelly Blaes, Lionel Mouledous, Olivier Fourcade, Ivan Tack, Bernard Francès, Jean-Pierre Girolami, Vincent Minville |
| Abstract |
Diabetic neuropathy is one of the most common complications of diabetes and causes various problems in daily life. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of regional anaesthesia on post surgery opioid induced hyperalgesia in diabetic and non-diabetic mice. Diabetic and non-diabetic mice underwent plantar surgery. Levobupivacaine and sufentanil were used before surgery, for sciatic nerve block (regional anaesthesia) and analgesia, respectively. Diabetic and non-diabetic groups were each randomly assigned to three subgroups: control, no sufentanil and no levobupivacaine; sufentanil and no levobupivacaine; sufentanil and levobupivacaine. Three tests were used to assess pain behaviour: mechanical nociception; thermal nociception and guarding behaviours using a pain scale. Sufentanil, alone or in combination with levobupivacaine, produced antinociceptive effects shortly after administration. Subsequently, sufentanil induced hyperalgesia in diabetic and non-diabetic mice. Opioid-induced hyperalgesia was enhanced in diabetic mice. Levobupivacaine associated to sufentanil completely prevented hyperalgesia in both groups of mice. The results suggest that regional anaesthesia can decrease opioid-induced hyperalgesia in diabetic as well as in non-diabetic mice. These observations may be clinically relevant for the management of diabetic patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 15% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 8 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 19% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 12% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 2 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 27% |
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 02 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,817,410
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,974
of 3,992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,911
of 263,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#71
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 263,464 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.