↓ Skip to main content

Systematic Review of the Use of Phytochemicals for Management of Pain in Cancer Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in BioMed Research International, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 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
Systematic Review of the Use of Phytochemicals for Management of Pain in Cancer Therapy
Published in
BioMed Research International, October 2015
DOI 10.1155/2015/506327
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew M. Harrison, Fabrice Heritier, Bennett G. Childs, J. Michael Bostwick, Mikhail A. Dziadzko

Abstract

Pain in cancer therapy is a common condition and there is a need for new options in therapeutic management. While phytochemicals have been proposed as one pain management solution, knowledge of their utility is limited. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the biomedical literature for the use of phytochemicals for management of cancer therapy pain in human subjects. Of an initial database search of 1,603 abstracts, 32 full-text articles were eligible for further assessment. Only 7 of these articles met all inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The average relative risk of phytochemical versus control was 1.03 [95% CI 0.59 to 2.06]. In other words (although not statistically significant), patients treated with phytochemicals were slightly more likely than patients treated with control to obtain successful management of pain in cancer therapy. We identified a lack of quality research literature on this subject and thus were unable to demonstrate a clear therapeutic benefit for either general or specific use of phytochemicals in the management of cancer pain. This lack of data is especially apparent for psychotropic phytochemicals, such as the Cannabis plant (marijuana). Additional implications of our findings are also explored.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
India 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Puerto Rico 1 1%
Unknown 85 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 7 8%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 26 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 6%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 25 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#14,536,679
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BioMed Research International
#3,852
of 10,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,341
of 294,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMed Research International
#174
of 468 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 294,427 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 468 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 62% of its contemporaries.