↓ Skip to main content

Subcutaneous or intravenous opioid administration by patient-controlled analgesia in cancer pain: a systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Subcutaneous or intravenous opioid administration by patient-controlled analgesia in cancer pain: a systematic literature review
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00520-018-4368-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa Nijland, Pia Schmidt, Michael Frosch, Julia Wager, Bettina Hübner-Möhler, Ross Drake, Boris Zernikow

Abstract

Opioids administered by various routes are a mainstay of tumour-related pain management. Subcutaneous or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with opioids is an appropriate and safe form of treatment for postoperative pain but studies on this form of administration are sparse in the setting of cancer pain despite widespread use. To evaluate the published studies on opioids administered by subcutaneous and intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for patients with cancer pain. Articles were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 7, 2016), PubMed (Medline; 1975 to 2016) and EMBASE (1974 to 2016). Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers. Studies based on original data with a focus on intravenous or subcutaneous PCA administration of opioids in patients suffering from cancer-related pain were selected. The language was restricted to Dutch, English or German. Predefined information was extracted depending on the topic. Fifty studies published since 1980 met the inclusion criteria. A wide range of study designs, study quality and research objectives were observed. The studies indicated use of standard or by proxy PCA in the inpatient and outpatient setting were safe and useful while significant adverse effects were rarely observed. This systematic review of the current evidence suggests PCA can be appropriately used in a wide range of clinical situations.

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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 23 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 7%
Unspecified 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 24 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 February 2019.
All research outputs
#15,542,250
of 23,098,660 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#3,149
of 4,652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,493
of 330,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#73
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,098,660 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,652 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,143 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.