↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Regional analgesia for improvement of long-term functional outcome after elective large joint replacement

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

1 policy source
2 tweeters
1 Facebook page


21 Dimensions

Readers on

202 Mendeley
Regional analgesia for improvement of long-term functional outcome after elective large joint replacement
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010278.pub2
Pubmed ID

Arthur Atchabahian, Gary Schwartz, Charles B Hall, Claudette M Lajam, Michael H Andreae


Regional analgesia is more effective than conventional analgesia for controlling pain and may facilitate rehabilitation after large joint replacement in the short term. It remains unclear if regional anaesthesia improves functional outcomes after joint replacement beyond three months after surgery. To assess the effects of regional anaesthesia and analgesia on long-term functional outcomes 3, 6 and 12 months after elective major joint (knee, shoulder and hip) replacement surgery. We performed an electronic search of several databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL), and handsearched reference lists and conference abstracts. We updated our search in June 2015. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing regional analgesia versus conventional analgesia in patients undergoing total shoulder, hip or knee replacement. We included studies that reported a functional outcome with a follow-up of at least three months after surgery. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We contacted study authors for additional information. We included six studies with 350 participants followed for at least three months. All of these studies enrolled participants undergoing total knee replacement. Studies were at least partially blinded. Three studies had a high risk of performance bias and one a high risk of attrition bias, but the risk of bias was otherwise unclear or low.Only one study assessed joint function using a global score. Due to heterogeneity in outcome and reporting, we could only pool three out of six RCTs, with range of motion assessed at three months after surgery used as a surrogate for joint function. All studies had a high risk of detection bias. Using the random-effects model, there was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups (mean difference 3.99 degrees, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 2.23 to 10.21; P value = 0.21, 3 studies, 140 participants, very low quality evidence).We did not perform further analyses because immediate adverse effects were not part of the explicit outcomes of any of these typically small studies, and long-term adverse events after regional anaesthesia are rare.None of the included studies elicited or reported long-term adverse effects like persistent nerve damage. More high-quality studies are needed to establish the effects of regional analgesia on function after major joint replacement, as well as on the risk of adverse events (falls).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 200 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 16%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Bachelor 21 10%
Student > Postgraduate 18 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 8%
Other 49 24%
Unknown 42 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 99 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 11%
Psychology 8 4%
Social Sciences 5 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Other 16 8%
Unknown 47 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 28 May 2020.
All research outputs
of 17,831,129 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,772 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 242,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,831,129 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,772 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 242,570 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 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.