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

Sciatic lateral popliteal block with clonidine alone or clonidine plus 0.2% ropivacaine: effect on the intra-and postoperative analgesia for lower extremity surgery in children: a randomized prospective controlled study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The effect of adding clonidine to local anesthetics for nerve or plexus blocks remains unclear. Most of the studies in adults have demonstrated the positive effects of clonidine on intra- and postoperative analgesia when used as an adjunctive agent or in some cases as a single to regional techniques. In the pediatric population, there are only few trials involving clonidine as an adjunct to regional anesthesia, and the analgesic benefits are not definite in this group of patients. The evidence concerning perineural administration of clonidine is so far inconclusive in children, as different types and volume of local anesthetic agents have been used in these studies. Moreover, the efficacy of regional anesthesia is largely affected by the operator's technique, accuracy and severity of operation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The use of clonidine alone or combined with 0.2% ropivacaine for effective analgesia after mild to moderate painful foot surgery was assessed in 66 children, after combined sciatic lateral popliteal block (SLPB) plus femoral block. The patients were randomly assigned into three groups to receive placebo, clonidine, and clonidine plus ropivacaine. Time to first analgesic request in the groups was analyzed by using Kaplan-Meier and the log-rank test (mean time, median time, 95% CI).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In our study, clonidine administered alone in the SLPB seems promising, maintaining intraoperatively the hemodynamic parameters SAP, DAP, HR to the lower normal values so that no patient needed nalbuphine under 0.6 MAC sevoflurane anesthesia, and postoperatively without analgesic request for a median time of 6 hours. In addition, clonidine administered as adjuvant enhances ropivacaine's analgesic effect for the first postoperative day in the majority of children (p = 0.001). Clonidine and clonidine plus ropivacaine groups also didn’t demonstrate PONV, motor blockade, and moreover, the parents of children expressed their satisfaction with the excellent perioperative management of their children, with satisfaction score 9.74 ± 0.45 and 9.73 ± 0.70 respectively. On the contrary all the patients in the control group required rescue nalbuphine in the recovery room, and postoperatively, along with high incidence of PONV, and the parents of children reported a low satisfaction score (7.50 ± 0.70).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Clonidine appears promising more as an adjuvant in 0.2% ropivacaine and less than alone in the SLPB plus femoral block in children undergoing mild to moderate painful foot surgery, with no side effects.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov, <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN90832436">ISRCTN90832436</a>, (ref: CCT-NAPN-20886).</p

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

Gabapentin for the hemodynamic response to intubation: systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose Endotracheal intubation is the gold standard for securing the airway before surgery. Nevertheless, this procedure can produce an activation of the sympathetic nervous system and result in a hemodynamic response which, in high-risk patients, may lead to cardiovascular instability and myocardial ischemia. The aim of this review was to evaluate whether gabapentin can attenuate this response and whether such an attenuation could translate into reduced myocardial ischemia and mortality. Source We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE™, CINAHL, AMED, and unpublished clinical trial databases for randomized-controlled trials that compared gabapentin with control, fentanyl, clonidine, or beta blockers for attenuating the hemodynamic response to intubation. Primary outcomes were mortality, myocardial infarction, and myocardial ischemia. Secondary outcomes were hemodynamic changes following intubation. Principal findings We included 29 randomized trials with only two studies at low risk of bias. No data were provided for the primary outcomes and no studies included high-risk patients. The use of gabapentin resulted in attenuation in the rise in mean arterial blood pressure [mean difference (MD), −12 mmHg; 95% confidence interval (CI), −17 to −8] and heart rate (MD, −8 beats·min−1; 95% CI, −11 to −5) one minute after intubation. Gabapentin also reduced the risk of hypertension or tachycardia requiring treatment (risk ratio, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.48). Data were limited on adverse hemodynamic events such as bradycardia and hypotension. Conclusion It remains unknown whether gabapentin improves clinically relevant outcomes such as death and myocardial infarction since studies failed to report on these. Nevertheless, gabapentin attenuated increases in heart rate and blood pressure following intubation when compared with the control group. Even so, the studies included in this review were at potential risk of bias. Moreover, they did not include high-risk patients or report adverse hemodynamic outcomes. Future studies are required to address these limitations