↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Comparison of continuous epidural infusion and programmed intermittent epidural bolus in labor analgesia

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2016
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 (76th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of continuous epidural infusion and programmed intermittent epidural bolus in labor analgesia
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, July 2016
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s106021
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yunan Lin, Qiang Li, Jinlu Liu, Ruimin Yang, Jingchen Liu

Abstract

This study aims to investigate differences between continuous epidural infusion (CEI) and programmed intermittent epidural bolus (IEB) analgesia for the Chinese parturients undergoing spontaneous delivery and to approach their safety to parturients and neonates. Two hundred healthy American Society of Anesthesiologists class I or II, term (≥37 weeks' gestation), nulliparous women who requested analgesia for labor were recruited. Epidural analgesia was initiated with a solution of 0.15% ropivacaine 10 mL and maintained with 0.1% ropivacaine mixed with sufentanil 0.3 μg/mL by CEI at a rate of 5 mL/h combined with a patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) bolus of 5 mL of ropivacaine sufentanil mixture or IEB of 5 mL of ropivacaine sufentanil mixture combined with a PCEA bolus of 5 mL of ropivacaine sufentanil mixture. The lockout interval was 20 minutes in each arm between the CEI and the IEB group. After 20 minutes of first dosage, visual analog scale (VAS) score was obtained every 60 minutes. The maternal and fetal outcome and total consumption of analgesic solution were compared. There was no difference in demographic characteristics, duration of first and second stages, delivery methods, sensory block, fetal Apgar scores, and the maternal outcomes between the CEI and IEB groups. There was a significant difference in VAS scores and epidural ropivacaine total consumption between the two groups (IEB vs CEI: 51.27±9.61 vs 70.44±12.78 mg, P<0.01). The use of programmed IEB mixed with PCEA improved labor analgesia compared to CEI mixed with PCEA, which could act as maintenance mode for epidural labor analgesia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 47 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Other 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Chemistry 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Unknown 8 17%
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 20 April 2020.
All research outputs
#5,240,151
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#261
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,477
of 367,266 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#10
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 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 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 367,266 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.