↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Local versus general anaesthesia for adults undergoing pars plana vitrectomy surgery

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
Title
Local versus general anaesthesia for adults undergoing pars plana vitrectomy surgery
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009936.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Licina, Sharan Sidhu, Jing Xie, Crispin Wan

Abstract

Vitrectomy surgery is one of the commonest ophthalmic procedures performed across the world. It may be performed using general or local anaesthesia encompassing regional or topical anaesthesia depending on a number of factors, including patient suitability, and patient, surgeon or anaesthetist preference. There have so far been no evidence-based recommendations on the best form of anaesthesia for this intervention. There is no clear collated evidence base as to the best type of anaesthesia to reduce harm, and provide best surgical conditions and optimal outcome for patients. To compare local with general anaesthesia for adults undergoing pars plana vitrectomy. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library and the reference lists of updated studies on the 25th of July 2016; MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1972 to July 2016) and Embase via Ovid SP (1972 to July 2016). In addition we searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) in July 2016. We searched the proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) up to July 2016 for information about other relevant studies.We also searched appropriate databases for ongoing reviews. We did not apply any language restriction. We assessed the search as up-to-date on the 25th of July 2016. We planned to include all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving comparison of different modalities of local anaesthesia with general anaesthesia for pars plana vitrectomy. We considered the following different modalities of local anaesthesia: sub-Tenon's anaesthesia, retrobulbar anaesthesia, topical anaesthesia, peribulbar anaesthesia. We planned to include cluster-randomized controlled trials. We excluded quasi-RCT trials. Two review authors conducted independent searches and assessed identified studies for inclusion according to the prespecified selection criteria. Two review authors assessed trial quality and planned to extract the data. We found no eligible studies that met our inclusion criteria and were therefore unable to perform a meta-analysis or conduct a methodological quality assessment. This systematic review failed to locate relevant clinical evidence to support or refute a pars plana vitrectomy performed with various modalities of local anaesthesia versus general anaesthesia. Good-quality clinical trials are needed to define the role of local versus general anaesthesia for pars plana vitrectomy.

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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Student > Master 12 11%
Other 8 7%
Researcher 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 43 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 50 46%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 January 2019.
All research outputs
#16,106,935
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,216
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,923
of 328,500 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#221
of 265 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 328,500 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 265 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.