| Title |
Fascia iliaca compartment block versus no block for pain control after lower limb surgery: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s149647 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Linyi Yang, Min Li, Chen Chen, Jiang Shen, Xiaoxuan Bu |
| Abstract |
The analgesic effect of fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) versus no block (NB) after lower limb surgery (LLS) is still controversial, so we performed this meta-analysis. By searching the PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library (last update by July 20, 2017), randomized controlled trials comparing the analgesic effect of FICB versus NB in patients receiving LLS were identified. The primary outcome was the pain scores at 4, 12, and 24 h after LLS. The dosage of morphine at 24 h was also collected. The side effect of anesthesia was assessed according to the occurrence rate of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Data from 7 clinical trials that included 508 patients were summarized. The results showed that patients receiving FICB had lower pain scores at 4 h (mean difference [MD]=-1.17; 95% CI=-2.30 to -0.05; P=0.041), 12 h (MD=-0.41; 95% CI=-0.76 to -0.05; P=0.026) and 24 h (MD=-0.96; 95% CI=-1.77 to -0.15; P=0.020) after LLS. Besides, FICB could reduce the dosage of morphine at 24 h (MD=-2.06; 95% CI=-3.82 to -0.30; P=0.022) and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (relative risk rate=0.44, 95% CI=0.24-0.80, P=0.008). Compared with NB, FICB is an effective and safe method for alleviating the pain after LLS. More high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm this finding. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 18 | 45% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 22 | 55% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 March 2019.
All research outputs
#17,925,346
of 23,015,156 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,344
of 1,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#305,761
of 437,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#44
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,015,156 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 437,955 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.