↓ Skip to main content

Consensus Guidelines on the Use of Intravenous Ketamine Infusions for Acute Pain Management From the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine…

Overview of attention for article published in Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#15 of 2,665)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
7 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
244 X users
facebook
18 Facebook pages
wikipedia
6 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
349 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
567 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Consensus Guidelines on the Use of Intravenous Ketamine Infusions for Acute Pain Management From the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, the American Academy of Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists
Published in
Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.1097/aap.0000000000000806
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric S. Schwenk, Eugene R. Viscusi, Asokumar Buvanendran, Robert W. Hurley, Ajay D. Wasan, Samer Narouze, Anuj Bhatia, Fred N. Davis, William M. Hooten, Steven P. Cohen

Abstract

Ketamine infusions have been used for decades to treat acute pain, but a recent surge in usage has made the infusions a mainstay of treatment in emergency departments, in the perioperative period in individuals with refractory pain, and in opioid-tolerant patients. The widespread variability in patient selection, treatment parameters, and monitoring indicates a need for the creation of consensus guidelines. The development of acute pain ketamine guidelines grew as a corollary from the genesis of chronic pain ketamine guidelines. The charge for the development of acute pain ketamine guidelines was provided by the Boards of Directors of both the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine, who approved the document along with the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Committees on Pain Medicine and Standards and Practice Parameters. The committee chair developed questions based on input from the committee during conference calls, which the committee then refined. Groups of 3 to 5 panel members and the committee chair were responsible for answering individual questions. After preliminary consensus was achieved, the entire committee made further revisions via e-mail and conference calls. Consensus guidelines were prepared in the following areas: indications, contraindications for acute pain and whether they differ from those for chronic pain, the evidence for the use of ketamine as an adjunct to opioid-based therapy, the evidence supporting patient-controlled ketamine analgesia, the use of nonparenteral forms of ketamine, and the subanesthetic dosage range and whether the evidence supports those dosages for acute pain. The group was able to reach consensus on the answers to all questions. Evidence supports the use of ketamine for acute pain in a variety of contexts, including as a stand-alone treatment, as an adjunct to opioids, and, to a lesser extent, as an intranasal formulation. Contraindications for acute pain are similar to those for chronic pain, partly based on the observation that the dosage ranges are similar. Larger studies evaluating different acute pain conditions are needed to enhance patient selection, determine the effectiveness of nonparenteral ketamine alternatives, define optimal treatment parameters, and develop protocols optimizing safety and access to care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 244 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 567 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 567 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 98 17%
Student > Master 53 9%
Researcher 52 9%
Student > Postgraduate 48 8%
Student > Bachelor 44 8%
Other 111 20%
Unknown 161 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 279 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 27 5%
Neuroscience 10 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 2%
Other 39 7%
Unknown 175 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 222. 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 13 April 2023.
All research outputs
#184,196
of 26,495,046 outputs
Outputs from Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine
#15
of 2,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,805
of 345,699 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine
#2
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,495,046 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,665 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 345,699 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.