↓ Skip to main content

Bilateral vs. unilateral endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for abdominal pain management in patients with pancreatic malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
Title
Bilateral vs. unilateral endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis for abdominal pain management in patients with pancreatic malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, September 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00520-017-3888-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fan Lu, Jifu Dong, Yuming Tang, He Huang, Hui Liu, Li Song, Kexian Zhang

Abstract

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) by bilateral or unilateral approach is widely used in palliative abdominal pain management in pancreatic cancer patients, but the analgesic effect and relative risks of the two different puncture routes remain controversial. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of bilateral EUS-CPN compared with unilateral EUS-CPN. An electronic database search was performed for randomized controlled trials comparing bilateral and unilateral approaches of EUS-CPN using the Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and CNKI databases. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 after screening and methodological evaluation of the selected studies. Outcomes included pain relief, treatment response, analgesic reduction, complications, and quality of life (QOL). Six eligible studies involving 437 patients were included. No significant difference was found in short-term pain relief [SMD = 0.31, 95% CI (- 0.20, 0.81), P = 0.23] and response to treatment [RR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.77, 1.41), P = 0.97] between the bilateral and unilateral neurolysis groups. However, only the bilateral approach was associated with a statistically significant reduction in the postoperative use of analgesics [RR = 0.66, 95% CI (0.47, 0.94), P = 0.02] compared to the unilateral approach. A descriptive analysis was performed for complications and QOL. The short-term analgesic effect and general risk of bilateral EUS-CPN are comparable with those of unilateral EUS-CPN, but our evidence supports the conclusion that the bilateral approach significantly reduces postoperative analgesic use.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 33%
Other 3 25%
Student > Bachelor 2 17%
Researcher 2 17%
Student > Master 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 50%
Unspecified 5 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 January 2019.
All research outputs
#10,091,961
of 13,210,683 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#1,902
of 2,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,044
of 271,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#51
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,210,683 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 271,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 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.