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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study of the Efficacy, Safety, and Tolerability of THC:CBD Extract and THC Extract in Patients with Intractable Cancer-Related Pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain & Symptom Management, November 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.06.008 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeremy R. Johnson, Mary Burnell-Nugent, Dominique Lossignol, Elena Doina Ganae-Motan, Richard Potts, Marie T. Fallon |
| Abstract |
This study compared the efficacy of a tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol (THC:CBD) extract, a nonopioid analgesic endocannabinoid system modulator, and a THC extract, with placebo, in relieving pain in patients with advanced cancer. In total, 177 patients with cancer pain, who experienced inadequate analgesia despite chronic opioid dosing, entered a two-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomized to THC:CBD extract (n = 60), THC extract (n = 58), or placebo (n = 59). The primary analysis of change from baseline in mean pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) score was statistically significantly in favor of THC:CBD compared with placebo (improvement of -1.37 vs. -0.69), whereas the THC group showed a nonsignificant change (-1.01 vs. -0.69). Twice as many patients taking THC:CBD showed a reduction of more than 30% from baseline pain NRS score when compared with placebo (23 [43%] vs. 12 [21%]). The associated odds ratio was statistically significant, whereas the number of THC group responders was similar to placebo (12 [23%] vs. 12 [21%]) and did not reach statistical significance. There was no change from baseline in median dose of opioid background medication or mean number of doses of breakthrough medication across treatment groups. No significant group differences were found in the NRS sleep quality or nausea scores or the pain control assessment. However, the results from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Cancer Questionnaire showed a worsening in nausea and vomiting with THC:CBD compared with placebo (P = 0.02), whereas THC had no difference (P = 1.0). Most drug-related adverse events were mild/moderate in severity. This study shows that THC:CBD extract is efficacious for relief of pain in patients with advanced cancer pain not fully relieved by strong opioids. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 54 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 | 11 | 20% |
| Canada | 7 | 13% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 6% |
| Argentina | 2 | 4% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 2% |
| Iceland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 27 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 41 | 76% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 11 | 20% |
| Scientists | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 851 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Ecuador | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 842 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 140 | 16% |
| Researcher | 109 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 95 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 69 | 8% |
| Other | 57 | 7% |
| Other | 150 | 18% |
| Unknown | 231 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 199 | 23% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 74 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 71 | 8% |
| Psychology | 47 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 45 | 5% |
| Other | 152 | 18% |
| Unknown | 263 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 357. 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 06 January 2024.
All research outputs
#91,823
of 25,760,414 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain & Symptom Management
#10
of 4,096 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172
of 109,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain & Symptom Management
#1
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,760,414 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 4,096 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. 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 109,275 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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.