↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological options for the management of refractory cancer pain—what is the evidence?

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
9 X users
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 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
Pharmacological options for the management of refractory cancer pain—what is the evidence?
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, March 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00520-015-2678-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. Afsharimani, K. Kindl, P. Good, J. Hardy

Abstract

Refractory cancer pain that does not respond to standard opioid and/or co-analgesic therapy occurs in 10-20 % of patients. Risk factors include young age, neuropathic pain type, incident pain, psychological distress, previous opioid use, high tolerance, a history of addiction and impaired cognition. The management of patients with refractory pain remains a challenge. Treatment options include opioid manipulation (parenteral delivery, rotation, combination, methadone and buprenorphine), non-opioids and co-analgesics (paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents, antidepressants and anticonvulsants), NMDA receptor antagonists, cannabinoids, lignocaine and corticosteroids. The evidence of benefit for any of these agents is weak, and each additional agent increases the risk of adverse events. Evidence-based guidelines cannot, therefore, be developed at present. New approaches are recommended including targeted opioid therapy, multimodal analgesia, a goal-oriented approach to pain management and increasing use of the multidisciplinary team and support services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 124 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 18 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 12%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Master 12 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 9%
Other 30 24%
Unknown 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 46%
Psychology 10 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 5%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 27 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,593,897
of 25,383,344 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#465
of 5,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,863
of 272,577 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#6
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,383,344 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,052 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 272,577 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 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 93% of its contemporaries.