↓ Skip to main content

Epidural pain relief versus systemic opioid‐based pain relief for abdominal aortic surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
16 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
359 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
Epidural pain relief versus systemic opioid‐based pain relief for abdominal aortic surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005059.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanne Guay, Sandra Kopp

Abstract

Epidural analgesia offers greater pain relief compared to systemic opioid-based medications, but its effect on morbidity and mortality is unclear. This review was originally published in 2006 and was updated in 2012 and again in 2016. To assess the benefits and harms of postoperative epidural analgesia in comparison with postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adults undergoing elective abdominal aortic surgery. In the updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and five trial registers in November 2014, together with reference checking to identify additional studies. We included all randomized controlled trials comparing postoperative epidural analgesia and postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adults who underwent elective open abdominal aortic surgery. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information and data when required. We assessed the level of evidence according to the scale provided by the GRADE working group. We included 15 trials published from 1987 to 2009 with 1498 participants in this updated review. Participants had a mean age between 60.5 and 71.3 years. The percentage of women in the included studies varied from 0% to 28.1%. Adding an epidural to general anaesthesia for people undergoing abdominal aortic repair reduced myocardial infarction (risk ratio (RR) 0.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.97); I(2) statistic = 0%; number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 28 (95% CI 19 to 1423), visual or verbal analogical scale (VAS) scores up to three days after the surgery (mean difference (MD) -1.78 (95% CI -2.32 to -1.25); I(2) statistic = 0% for VAS scores on movement at postoperative day one), time to tracheal extubation (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.42 (95% CI -0.70 to -0.15); I(2) statistic = 83%; equivalent to a mean reduction of 36 hours), postoperative respiratory failure (RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.85); I(2) statistic = 0%; NNTB 8 (95% CI 6 to 16)), gastrointestinal bleeding (OR 0.20 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.65); I(2) statistic = 0%; NNTB 32 (95% CI 27 to 74)) and time spent in the intensive care unit (SMD -0.23 (95% CI -0.41 to -0.06); I(2) statistic = 0%; equivalent to a mean reduction of six hours). We did not demonstrate a reduction in the mortality rate up to 30 days (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.86); I(2) statistic = 0%). The level of evidence was low for mortality and time before tracheal extubation; moderate for myocardial infarction, respiratory failure and intensive care unit length of stay; and high for gastrointestinal bleeding and VAS scores. Epidural analgesia provided better pain management, reduced myocardial infarction, time to tracheal extubation, postoperative respiratory failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, and intensive care unit length of stay compared with systemic opioid-based drugs. For mortality, we did not find a difference at 30 days.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 359 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 356 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 14%
Student > Bachelor 37 10%
Researcher 35 10%
Other 28 8%
Student > Postgraduate 20 6%
Other 80 22%
Unknown 108 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 159 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 2%
Social Sciences 7 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 2%
Other 33 9%
Unknown 110 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 December 2023.
All research outputs
#2,287,239
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,713
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,919
of 400,559 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#113
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 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 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 400,559 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.