↓ Skip to main content

Lidocaine for preventing postoperative sore throat

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
Lidocaine for preventing postoperative sore throat
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004081.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuu Tanaka, Takeo Nakayama, Mina Nishimori, Yuka Tsujimura, Masahiko Kawaguchi, Yuki Sato

Abstract

Sore throat is a common side-effect of general anaesthesia and is reported by between 30% and 70% of patients after tracheal intubation. The likelihood of a sore throat varies with the type, diameter, and cuff pressure of the endotracheal tube used. If intubation is essential, it may be helpful to give drugs prophylactically to alleviate postoperative sore throat. Local anaesthetics and steroids have been used for this purpose. This review was originally published in 2009 and was updated in 2015. The objective of this review was to evaluate the efficacy and any harm caused by topical and systemic lidocaine used prophylactically to prevent postoperative sore throat in adults undergoing general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation. We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2013), and EMBASE (1980 to October 2013). We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field. The original search was undertaken in June 2007. We reran the search in February 2015 and found four studies of interest. We will deal with those studies when we next update the review. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of topical and systemic prophylactic lidocaine therapy versus control (using air or saline) that reported on the risk and severity of postoperative sore throat as an outcome. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information, such as the risk of any adverse effects. We included 19 studies involving 1940 participants in this updated review. Of those 1940 participants, 952 received topical or systemic lidocaine therapy and 795 were allocated to the control groups. Topical and systemic lidocaine therapy appeared to reduce the risk of postoperative sore throat (16 studies, 1774 participants, risk ratio (RR) was 0.64 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 0.85), the quality of the evidence was low), although when only high-quality trials were included (eight studies, 814 participants) the effect was no longer significant (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.09). Lidocaine given systemically in two studies (320 participants) did not reveal evidence of an effect (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.05 ). The severity of sore throat as measured on a visual-analogue scale (VAS) was reduced by lidocaine therapy (six trials, 611 participants, (mean difference (MD) -10.80, 95% CI -14.63 to -6.98). The adverse effects of lidocaine were not reported in these studies, though toxicity is generally rare. In our revised systematic review, although the results of included studies show generally positive results, they should be interpreted carefully. The effect size of lidocaine appeared to be affected by study quality; drug concentration; route of administration; management of cuff pressure during anaesthesia; the included population; and the type of outcome measured.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 112 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Postgraduate 13 12%
Other 13 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Other 31 28%
Unknown 18 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 57 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 11%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 26 23%

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 26 April 2016.
All research outputs
#3,552,274
of 13,600,232 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,392
of 10,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,664
of 229,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#177
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,600,232 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,670 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 229,277 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.