| Title |
Informing hot flash treatment decisions for breast cancer survivors: a systematic review of randomized trials comparing active interventions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10549-016-3765-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claire Johns, Susan M. Seav, Sally A. Dominick, Jessica R. Gorman, Hongying Li, Loki Natarajan, Jun James Mao, H. Irene Su |
| Abstract |
Patient-centered decision making about hot flash treatments often incorporates a balance of efficacy and side effects in addition to patient preference. This systematic review examines randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing at least two non-hormonal hot flash treatments in breast cancer survivors. In July 2015, PubMed, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched for RCTs comparing active, non-hormonal hot flash treatments in female breast cancer survivors. Thirteen trials were included after identifying 906 potential studies. Four trials were dose comparison studies of pharmacologic treatments citalopram, venlafaxine, gabapentin, and paroxetine. Hot flash reduction did not differ by tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor use. Citalopram 10, 20, and 30 mg daily had comparable outcomes. Venlafaxine 75 mg daily improved hot flashes without additional side effects from higher dosing. Gabapentin 900 mg daily improved hot flashes more than 300 mg. Paroxetine 10 mg daily had fewer side effects than 20 mg. Among four trials comparing different pharmacologic treatments, venlafaxine alleviated hot flash symptoms faster than clonidine; participants preferred venlafaxine over gabapentin. Five trials compared pharmacologic to non-pharmacologic treatments. Acupuncture had similar efficacy to venlafaxine and gabapentin but may have longer durability after completing treatment and fewer side effects. We could not perform a pooled meta-analysis because outcomes were not reported in comparable formats. Clinical trial data on non-hormonal hot flash treatments provide comparisons of hot flash efficacy and other patient important outcomes to guide clinical management. Clinicians can use the information to help patients select hot flash interventions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 | 3 | 43% |
| Spain | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 3 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 14% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 113 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 21% |
| Unknown | 34 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 4% |
| Psychology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 15 | 13% |
| Unknown | 33 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 14 November 2016.
All research outputs
#5,615,715
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#1,233
of 4,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,762
of 300,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#15
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,659 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 300,768 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.