↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for reducing rocuronium bromide induced pain on injection in children and adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for reducing rocuronium bromide induced pain on injection in children and adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009346.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hemanshu Prabhakar, Gyaninder Pal Singh, Zulfiqar Ali, Mani Kalaivani, Martha A Smith

Abstract

Rocuronium bromide is a routinely used muscle relaxant in anaesthetic practice. Its use, however, is associated with intense pain on injection. While it is well established that rocuronium bromide injection causes pain in awake patients, anaesthetized patients also tend to show withdrawal movements of the limbs when this muscle relaxant is administered. Various strategies, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, have been studied to reduce the incidence and severity of pain on rocuronium bromide injection. We wanted to find out which of the existing modalities was best to reduce pain on rocuronium injection. The objectives of this review were to assess the ability of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to reduce or eliminate the pain that accompanies rocuronium bromide administration. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1966 to July 2013) and EMBASE via Ovid SP (1980 to July 2013). We also searched specific websites. We reran the searches in February 2015 and will deal with the 11 studies of interest found through this search when we update the review. We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of any drug or a non-pharmacological method with control patients, or those receiving no treatment to reduce the severity of pain with rocuronium injection. Our primary outcome was pain on rocuronium bromide injection measured by a pain score assessment. Our secondary outcomes were rise in heart rate and blood pressure following administration of rocuronium and adverse events related to the interventions. We used the standardized methods for conducting a systematic review as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two authors independently extracted details of trial methodology and outcome data from reports of all trials considered eligible for inclusion. We made all analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. We used a fixed-effect model where there was no evidence of significant heterogeneity between studies and a random-effects model if heterogeneity was likely. We included 66 studies with 7840 participants in the review, though most analyses were based on data from fewer participants. In total there are 17 studies awaiting classification. No studies were at a low risk of bias. We noted substantial statistical and clinical heterogeneity between trials. Most of the studies reported the primary outcome pain as assessed by verbal response from participants in an awake state but some trials reported withdrawal of the injected limb as a proxy for pain after induction of anaesthesia in response to rocuronium administration. Few studies reported adverse events and no study reported heart rate and blood pressure changes after administration of rocuronium. Lidocaine was the most commonly studied intervention drug, used in 29 trials with 2256 participants. The risk ratio (RR) of pain on injection if given lidocaine compared to placebo was 0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.31; I² = 65%, low quality of evidence). The RR of pain on injection if fentanyl and remifentanil were given compared to placebo was 0.42 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.70; I² = 79%, low quality of evidence) and (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26; I² = 74%, low quality of evidence), respectively. Pain on injection of intervention drugs was reported with the use of lidocaine and acetaminophen in one study. Cough was reported with the use of fentanyl (one study), remifentanil (five studies, low quality evidence) and alfentanil (one study). Breath holding and chest tightness were reported with the use of remifentanil in two studies (very low quality evidence) and one study (very low quality evidence), respectively. The overall rate of complications was low. The evidence to suggest that the most commonly investigated pharmacological interventions reduce pain on injection of rocuronium is of low quality due to risk of bias and inconsistency. There is low or very low quality evidence for adverse events, due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision of effect. We did not compare the various interventions with one another and so cannot comment on the superiority of one intervention over another. Complications were reported more often with use of opioids.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 25%
Unspecified 14 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 20 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 48%
Unspecified 16 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Psychology 5 6%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 7 9%

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 31 January 2018.
All research outputs
#6,788,931
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,428
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,959
of 335,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#128
of 170 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 335,399 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 59% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 170 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.