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 |
Cancer Pain Management
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Mayo Clinic Proceedings, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.08.009 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas J. Smith, Catherine B. Saiki |
| Abstract |
Safe, effective, and evidence-based management of cancer-related pain is a cornerstone of comprehensive cancer care. Despite increasing interest in and efforts to improve its management, pain remains poorly controlled in nearly half of all patients with cancer, with little change in the past 20 years. Limited training in pain assessment and management, overestimation of providers' own skills to treat pain, and failure to refer patients to pain specialists can result in suboptimal pain management with devastating effects on quality of life, physical functioning, and increased psychological distress. From a thorough assessment of cancer-related pain to appropriate treatments that may include opiates, adjuvant medications, nerve blocks, and nondrug interventions, this article is intended as a brief overview of the mechanisms and types of pain as well as a review of current, new, and promising approaches to its management. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 95 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 | 22 | 23% |
| Canada | 5 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 4 | 4% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 3 | 3% |
| Mexico | 3 | 3% |
| Japan | 2 | 2% |
| Australia | 2 | 2% |
| Kenya | 2 | 2% |
| Rwanda | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 39 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 64 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 20 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 7 | 7% |
| Scientists | 4 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Denmark | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 187 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 12% |
| Other | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 35 | 19% |
| Unknown | 51 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 66 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 24 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 15 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Psychology | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 19 | 10% |
| Unknown | 57 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 30 September 2016.
All research outputs
#615,859
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Mayo Clinic Proceedings
#415
of 5,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,826
of 286,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mayo Clinic Proceedings
#16
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 286,876 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.