Auricular Acupunctures are Effective for the Prevention of Postoperative Agitation in Old Patients

Postoperative cognitive problems and delirium are not uncommon in the elderly. We reported four cases in which auricular acupunctures on the ‘Shenmen’ and ‘Point Zero’ points successfully managed postoperative problematic behaviors of the three patients with dementia and the one patient postoperatively demonstrating an agitated behavior

Gabapentin for acute and chronic post-surgical pain

Pain after surgery remains a significant clinical problem as it impairs recovery adversely and may lead to the transition to chronic pain. Opioid medications are far from ideal agents in suppressing postoperative pain. Gabapentin -an anticonvulsant with antihyperalgesic properties- originally efficacious against neuropathic pain seems to be very promising for the management of pain after surgery as well. Gabapentin, by decreasing noxious stimulus-induced excitatory neurotransmitter release at the spinal cord, may attenuate central sensitization, and eventually decrease postoperative late pain. Furthermore, different sites of action may be pertinent to a synergistic effect with opioids. Both actions (antihyperalgesic effect and synergy with opioid analgesia) may manifest as analgesia and/or opioid-sparing effect after surgery. This has been confirmed by a variety of clinical studies, in a variety of settings. Most of these studies have shown that either single preoperative or repeated doses of gabapentin, continued for up to a few days after surgery, decrease acute postoperative pain and/or need for postoperative opioids. This has been shown for procedures such as abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy, breast surgery for cancer (mastectomy or lumpectomy), lumbar discectomy and spinal fusion, laparoscopic cholecystectomy and other, such as ENT surgery. Finally, a few studies indicate that perioperative gabapentin may as well decrease chronic pain several weeks after surgery

Influential variables in the Journal Impact Factor of Dentistry journals

Objective: The aim of this contribution is to determine what variables influence the position, by quartiles of the impact factor, as a quality indicator of a journal in the field of Dentistry. Methods: To this end, 24 journals included in Journal Citation Reports, 6 pertaining to each quartile were selected by a stratified sampling and then an ordinal regression model was estimated stepwise considering the journal impact factor quartile as response variable. Results: The estimation procedure concluded that the average number of papers published yearly by a journal and the percentage of systematic reviews are the most significant variables to be considered, along with the factor representing the journal's degree of adherence to recommendations by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Conclusions/Clinical significance: Systematic reviews have significant effect on the Journal Impact Factor position of a journal as well as adherence to ICMJE recommendations, while papers publishing clinical trials bear no influence on this factor. Greater yearly average of published papers in a journal means a higher impact factor.This work was supported by project MTM2017-88708-P of the Secretaría de Estado de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Spain, and researching groups CTS-167 and FQM-307 of PAI Junta de Andalucía, Spai

A double blind randomized trial of wound infiltration with ropivacaine after breast cancer surgery with axillary nodes dissection

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The effect of local infiltration after breast surgery is controversial. This prospective double blind randomized study sought to document the analgesic effect of local anaesthetic infiltration after breast cancer surgery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients scheduled for mastectomy or tumorectomy and axillary nodes dissection had immediate postoperative infiltration of the surgical wound with 20 ml of ropivacaine 7.5 mg.ml^-1or isotonic saline. Pain was assessed on a visual analogue scale at H2, H4, H6, H12, H24, H72, and at 2 month, at rest and on mobilization of the arm. Patient'comfort was evaluated with numerical 0-3 scales for fatigue, quality of sleep, state of mood, social function and activity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-two and 24 patients were included in the ropivacaine and saline groups respectively. Postoperative pain was lower at rest and on mobilization at 2, 4 and 6 hour after surgery in the ropivacaine group. No other difference in pain intensity and patient 'comfort scoring was documented during the first 3 postoperative days. Patients did not differ at 2 month for pain and comfort scores.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Single shot infiltration with ropivacaine transiently improves postoperative pain control after breast cancer surgery.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p><a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01404377">NCT01404377</a></p

Citation analysis of orthopaedic literature; 18 major orthopaedic journals compared for Impact Factor and SCImago

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>One of the disadvantages of the Impact Factor (IF) is self-citation. The SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) indicator excludes self-citations and considers the quality, rather than absolute numbers, of citations of a journal by other journals. The present study re-evaluated the influence of self-citation on the 2007 IF for 18 major orthopaedic journals and investigated the difference in ranking between IF and SJR.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The journals were analysed for self-citation both overall and divided into a general group (n = 8) and a specialized group (n = 10). Self-cited and self-citing rates, as well as citation densities and IFs corrected for self-citation (cIF), were calculated. The rankings of the 18 journals by IF and by SJR were compared and the absolute difference between these rankings (ΔR) was determined.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Specialized journals had higher self-citing rates (p = 0.01, Δmedian = 9.50, 95%CI -19.42 to 0.42), higher self-cited rates (p = 0.0004, Δmedian = -10.50, 95%CI -15.28 to -5.72) and greater differences between IF and cIF (p = 0.003, Δmedian = 3.50, 95%CI -6.1 to 13.1). There was no significant correlation between self-citing rate and IF for both groups (general: r = 0.46, p = 0.27; specialized: r = 0.21, p = 0.56). When the difference in ranking between IF and SJR was compared between both groups, sub-specialist journals were ranked lower compared to their general counterparts (ΔR: p = 0.006, Δmedian = 2.0, 95%CI -0.39 to 4.39).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Citation analysis shows that specialized orthopaedic journals have specific self-citation tendencies. The correlation between self-cited rate and IF in our sample was large but, due to small sample size, not significant. The SJR excludes self-citations in its calculation and therefore enhances the underestimation in ranking of specialized journals.</p

Author Self-Citation in the General Medicine Literature

Background: Author self-citation contributes to the overall citation count of an article and the impact factor of the journal in which it appears. Little is known, however, about the extent of self-citation in the general clinical medicine literature. The objective of this study was to determine the extent and temporal pattern of author self-citation and the article characteristics associated with author self-citation. Methodology/Principal Findings: We performed a retrospective cohort study of articles published in three high impact general medical journals (JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine) between October 1, 1999 and March 31, 2000. We retrieved the number and percentage of author self-citations received by the article since publication, as of June 2008, from the Scopus citation database. Several article characteristics were extracted by two blinded, independent reviewers for each article in the cohort and analyzed in multivariable linear regression analyses. Since publication, author self-citations accounted for 6.5 % (95 % confidence interval 6.3–6.7%) of all citations received by the 328 articles in our sample. Selfcitation peaked in 2002, declining annually thereafter. Studies with more authors, in cardiovascular medicine or infectious disease, and with smaller sample size were associated with more author self-citations and higher percentage of author selfcitation (all p#0.01). Conclusions/Significance: Approximately 1 in 15 citations of articles in high-profile general medicine journals are autho

Impact Factor: outdated artefact or stepping-stone to journal certification?

A review of Garfield's journal impact factor and its specific implementation as the Thomson Reuters Impact Factor reveals several weaknesses in this commonly-used indicator of journal standing. Key limitations include the mismatch between citing and cited documents, the deceptive display of three decimals that belies the real precision, and the absence of confidence intervals. These are minor issues that are easily amended and should be corrected, but more substantive improvements are needed. There are indications that the scientific community seeks and needs better certification of journal procedures to improve the quality of published science. Comprehensive certification of editorial and review procedures could help ensure adequate procedures to detect duplicate and fraudulent submissions.Comment: 25 pages, 12 figures, 6 table

Characteristics Associated with Citation Rate of the Medical Literature

BACKGROUND: The citation rate for articles is viewed as a measure of their importance and impact; however, little is known about what features of articles are associated with higher citation rate. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We conducted a cohort study of all original articles, regardless of study methodology, published in the Lancet, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine, from October 1, 1999 to March 31, 2000. We identified 328 articles. Two blinded, independent reviewers extracted, in duplicate, nine variables from each article, which were analyzed in both univariable and multivariable linear least-squares regression models for their association with the annual rate of citations received by the article since publication. A two-way interaction between industry funding and an industry-favoring result was tested and found to be significant (p = 0.02). In our adjusted analysis, the presence of industry funding and an industry-favoring result was associated with an increase in annual citation rate of 25.7 (95% confidence interval, 8.5 to 42.8) compared to the absence of both industry funding and industry-favoring results. Higher annual rates of citation were also associated with articles dealing with cardiovascular medicine (13.3 more; 95% confidence interval, 3.9 to 22.3) and oncology (12.6 more; 95% confidence interval, 1.2 to 24.0), articles with group authorship (11.1 more; 95% confidence interval, 2.7 to 19.5), larger sample size and journal of publication. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Large trials, with group authorship, industry-funded, with industry-favoring results, in oncology or cardiology were associated with greater subsequent citations