↓ Skip to main content

Best Practices for Medication Utilization Evaluations in Postsurgical Pain Management

Overview of attention for article published in Current Emergency and Hospital Medicine Reports, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
Best Practices for Medication Utilization Evaluations in Postsurgical Pain Management
Published in
Current Emergency and Hospital Medicine Reports, December 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40138-016-0121-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian Faley, John Fanikos

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to provide guidance that aids in the practical design, implementation, and analysis of medication use evaluations (MUEs) for postsurgical pain management. Clinicians have long employed drug use evaluations or drug utilization reviews to ensure the safe and appropriate use of medications in a hospital, medical practice, or other healthcare setting. Although these approaches are valuable, there is a growing trend toward replacing these methods with the MUE, a performance improvement tool that focuses on assessing and improving medication use processes or medication treatment response with the goal of optimizing patient outcomes. Utilizing MUEs to assess patient outcomes and quality of life can be challenging in certain therapeutic areas such as pain management, where measurements of pain can be quantitative but are inherently subjective. Currently, there is little guidance on the development of MUEs that balance subjective and objective outcomes. MUEs continue to become the standard for quality improvement for optimizing care and ensuring optimal outcomes. This review of the literature provides guidance in post-surgical pain management, an area that requires measurement of both subjective and objective outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 32%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 5 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 16%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 11%
Unspecified 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 01 June 2017.
All research outputs
#14,929,731
of 22,963,381 outputs
Outputs from Current Emergency and Hospital Medicine Reports
#31
of 96 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#241,526
of 419,930 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Emergency and Hospital Medicine Reports
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,963,381 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 96 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 419,930 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them