↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Clonidine versus other adjuncts added to local anesthetics for pediatric neuraxial blocks: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Clonidine versus other adjuncts added to local anesthetics for pediatric neuraxial blocks: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s158264
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yang Yang, Ling-Yu Yu, Wen-Sheng Zhang

Abstract

Clonidine is a common adjunct to local anesthetics for pediatric neuraxial block; however, the pros and cons between clonidine and other adjuncts remain unclear. Thus, we performed this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy and adverse effects between clonidine and other adjuncts added to local anesthetics. The systematic search, data extraction, critical appraisal, and pooled analysis were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Randomized controlled studies were searched in Cochrane (to present), Medline (1946 to present), Embase (1974 to present), and Biosis (1995 to present). Relative risks (RRs), standard mean difference (SMD), and associated CIs were calculated using RevMan statistical software to assess continuous and dichotomous data. Heterogeneity in studies was measured by forest plots and I2 values. Subgroup analysis was performed for continuous and dichotomous variables, while meta-regression was applied for continuous data with high I2 values. A total of 15 randomized controlled studies met the inclusion criteria. There was a longer duration of postoperative analgesia in the clonidine group than for other adjuncts (SMD=1.54, p=0.005, I2=96%). The number of patients requiring rescue analgesia was lower in the clonidine group without the addition of epinephrine (RR=0.55, p=0.0002, I2=0), while the RR for the comparison with epinephrine was significant (p=0.62, I2=95%). The duration of motor block was longer in the clonidine group (mean difference [MD]=1.06, p<0.00001, I2=0). The clonidine group also had a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV; RR=0.49, p<0.00001, I2=0). Postoperative bradycardia, hypotension, and urinary retention were not significantly different between clonidine and other adjuncts (p>0.05). Clonidine, compared with other adjuncts, added to local anesthetics for neuraxial block, provides a longer duration of postoperative analgesia with lower incidence of PONV. However, the duration of motor block may also be prolonged by clonidine.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 8 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 33%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unspecified 1 6%
Engineering 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 15 August 2018.
All research outputs
#5,093,305
of 25,208,845 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#540
of 1,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,504
of 332,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#17
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,208,845 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,955 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 332,525 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 69% of its contemporaries.