↓ Skip to main content

Nitrous oxide-based techniques versus nitrous oxide-free techniques for general anaesthesia

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
165 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
Nitrous oxide-based techniques versus nitrous oxide-free techniques for general anaesthesia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008984.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rao Sun, Wen Qin Jia, Peng Zhang, KeHu Yang, Jin Hui Tian, Bin Ma, Yali Liu, Run H Jia, Xiao F Luo, Akira Kuriyama

Abstract

Nitrous oxide has been used for over 160 years for the induction and maintenance of general anaesthesia. It has been used as a sole agent but is most often employed as part of a technique using other anaesthetic gases, intravenous agents, or both. Its low tissue solubility (and therefore rapid kinetics), low cost, and low rate of cardiorespiratory complications have made nitrous oxide by far the most commonly used general anaesthetic. The accumulating evidence regarding adverse effects of nitrous oxide administration has led many anaesthetists to question its continued routine use in a variety of operating room settings. Adverse events may result from both the biological actions of nitrous oxide and the fact that to deliver an effective dose, nitrous oxide, which is a relatively weak anaesthetic agent, needs to be given in high concentrations that restrict oxygen delivery (for example, a common mixture is 30% oxygen with 70% nitrous oxide). As well as the risk of low blood oxygen levels, concerns have also been raised regarding the risk of compromising the immune system, impaired cognition, postoperative cardiovascular complications, bowel obstruction from distention, and possible respiratory compromise. To determine if nitrous oxide-based anaesthesia results in similar outcomes to nitrous oxide-free anaesthesia in adults undergoing surgery. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014 Issue 10); MEDLINE (1966 to 17 October 2014); EMBASE (1974 to 17 October 2014); and ISI Web of Science (1974 to 17 October 2014). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles, conference proceedings, and ongoing trials up to 17 October 2014 on specific websites (http://clinicaltrials.gov/, http://controlled-trials.com/, and http://www.centerwatch.com). We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing general anaesthesia where nitrous oxide was part of the anaesthetic technique used for the induction or maintenance of general anaesthesia (or both) with any general anaesthesia using a volatile anaesthetic or propofol-based maintenance of anaesthesia but no nitrous oxide for adults undergoing surgery. Our primary outcome was inhospital case fatality rate. Secondary outcomes were complications and length of stay. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the outcome data. We used meta-analysis for data synthesis. Heterogeneity was examined with the Chi² test and by calculating the I² statistic. We used a fixed-effect model if the measure of inconsistency was low for all comparisons (I² statistic < 50%); otherwise we used a random-effects model for measures with high inconsistency. We undertook subgroup analyses to explore inconsistency and sensitivity analyses to evaluate whether the results were robust. We assessed the quality of evidence of the main outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. We included 35 trials (13,872 adult participants). Seven included studies were at low risk of bias. We identified eight studies as awaiting classification since we could not obtain the full texts, and had insufficient information to include or exclude them. We included data from 24 trials for quantitative synthesis. The results of meta-analyses showed that nitrous oxide-based techniques increased the incidence of pulmonary atelectasis (odds ratio (OR) 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 2.10, P = 0.002), but had no effects on the inhospital case fatality rate, the incidence of pneumonia, myocardial infarction, stroke, severe nausea and vomiting, venous thromboembolism, wound infection, or the length of hospital stay. The sensitivity analyses suggested that the results of the meta-analyses were all robust except for the outcomes of pneumonia, and severe nausea and vomiting. Two trials reported length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay but the data were skewed so were not pooled. Both trials reported that nitrous oxide-based techniques had no effects on the length of ICU stay. We rated the quality of evidence for two outcomes (pulmonary atelectasis, myocardial infarction) as high, four outcomes (inhospital case fatality rate, stroke, venous thromboembolism, length of hospital stay) as moderate, and three (pneumonia, severe nausea and vomiting, wound infection rate) as low. Given the evidence from this Cochrane review, the avoidance of nitrous oxide may be reasonable in participants with pre-existing poor pulmonary function or at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Since there are eight studies awaiting classification, selection bias may exist in our systematic review.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 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 165 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 163 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 24%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 30 18%
Unknown 26 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 12%
Psychology 7 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Neuroscience 5 3%
Other 9 5%
Unknown 34 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 16 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,260,309
of 15,371,744 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,432
of 11,170 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,465
of 286,903 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#110
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,371,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,170 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
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 286,903 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.