ArticleScanning2022
Nursing Methods and Experience of Local Anesthesia Patients under Arthroscope.
Article in Scanning, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A retrospective cohort study on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in patients with diabetic foot ulcer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Retracted: Nursing Methods and Experience of Local Anesthesia Patients under Arthroscope.Scanning · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-09-27Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Informed/Patient Consent - None/Withdrawn · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Lack of IRB/IACUC Approval and/or Compliance · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions · · See also: https://pubpeer.com/publications/4F03D46C0EE65FEA947823C3E76BCE
- Retracted
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In order to solve the nursing problems of local anesthesia patients under arthroscopy, a nursing method and experience based on local anesthesia patients under arthroscopy was proposed. From June 2019 to May 2021, 478 patients who underwent knee arthroscopy under spinal anesthesia or local anesthesia were retrospectively investigated, including 186 cases (38.9%) under local anesthesia and 292 cases (61.1%) under spinal anesthesia. 2% lidocaine plus epinephrine was injected locally and intra-articular in patients with local anesthesia, and 0.75% bupivacaine in patients with spinal anesthesia. It was found that in the local anesthesia group and spinal anesthesia group, 94.1% (175/186) and 98.3% (287/292) patients did not feel pain during operation. 93.0% (173/186 cases) and 96.2% (281/292 cases) of patients in the two groups were satisfied or very satisfied with the effect of anesthesia, respectively. The experimental results showed that local anesthesia was a simple and effective anesthesia method for knee arthroscopy, which was more reliable and safer than spinal anesthesia. Local anesthesia could be used for knee arthroscopy or cleaning and rinsing, free body removal, or even common meniscinoplasty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.