↓ Skip to main content

Regional versus general anaesthesia in elderly patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture: protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
Regional versus general anaesthesia in elderly patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture: protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0246-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joyce Yeung, Vanisha Patel, Rita Champaneria, Janine Dretzke

Abstract

With an ageing population, the incidence of hip fractures requiring surgery is increasing. Post-operative delirium is common following hip fracture surgery. Delirium is associated with high mortality and morbidity, poor long-term functional outcomes and institutionalisation. There is some evidence to suggest that perioperative intervention, specifically the anaesthetic technique employed, may reduce the incidence of delirium in this population. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the impact of anaesthesia type on post-operative delirium. We will conduct a systematic literature review using Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) bibliographic databases and the ZETOC and Web of Science websites. Authors of these trials will be invited to contribute unpublished data. PROSPERO register and clinical trial registers will also be searched to identify any ongoing reviews and trials. Eligible studies will assess the incidence of post-operative delirium in patients having regional or general anaesthesia for hip fracture surgery. The primary outcome of interest will be post-operative delirium; secondary outcomes will include mortality, measures of functional outcome, quality of life, length of hospital stay, discharge location and adverse events. Two reviewers will independently screen references identified by electronic literature searches. Two independent reviewers will extract data from studies fulfilling our inclusion criteria using a piloted data extraction form. Methodological quality and bias of included randomised controlled trials will be assessed using the 'Cochrane Collaborations tool for assessing risk of bias'; for non-randomised studies, this will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Data on similar outcomes will be pooled when possible. Where possible, meta-analysis will be undertaken using Review Manager (RevMan version 5.3) software. This systematic review will provide an updated evidence base with which to guide clinical practice and research for this group of challenging patients. If the anaesthetic technique employed is shown to reduce the incidence of post-operative cognition dysfunction, then this may lead to a change in evidence-based practice, influence future guidelines and support further randomised controlled trial research. There is no known effective treatment for delirium, creating the urgent need for research into delirium prevention. PROSPERO CRD42015020166.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 89 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 18%
Other 12 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 21 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 47%
Psychology 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 18 May 2016.
All research outputs
#13,727,700
of 24,486,486 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,405
of 2,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,793
of 304,377 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#26
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,486,486 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,126 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 304,377 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.