| Title |
Genetic Testing for Opioid Pain Management: A Primer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pain and Therapy, April 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40122-017-0069-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Deepti Agarwal, Mercy A. Udoji, Andrea Trescot |
| Abstract |
Patients see their primary care physicians (PCPs) for a variety of medical conditions, chronic pain being one of the most common. An increased use of prescription medications (especially opioids) has led to an increase in adverse drug reactions and has heightened our awareness of the variability in response to medications. Opioids and other pain adjuvants are widely used, and drug-drug interactions involving these analgesics can be problematic and potentially lethal. Pharmacogenetics has improved our understanding of drug efficacy and response, opened doors to individual tailoring of medical management, and created a series of ethical and economic considerations. Since it is a relatively new field, genetic testing has not been fully integrated into the primary care setting. The purpose of this paper is to review the metabolism of commonly prescribed opioids, discuss the economic and ethical issues, and provide PCPs with an understanding of how to incorporate genetic testing into routine use to improve clinical practice and patient management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 36% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 19 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 76% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 12% |
| Scientists | 3 | 9% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 120 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 24 | 20% |
| Researcher | 16 | 13% |
| Other | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 24 | 20% |
| Unknown | 21 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 25 | 21% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 15 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 14 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 6% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 23% |
| Unknown | 24 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 39. 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 24 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,062,008
of 25,773,273 outputs
Outputs from Pain and Therapy
#36
of 502 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,201
of 325,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pain and Therapy
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,773,273 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 502 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 325,645 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.