↓ Skip to main content

Opioids for the management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 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
Opioids for the management of breakthrough pain in cancer patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004311.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giovambattista Zeppetella, Andrew N Davies

Abstract

This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 1, 2006). Breakthrough pain is a transient exacerbation of pain that occurs either spontaneously or in relation to a specific predictable or unpredictable trigger despite relative stable and adequately controlled background pain. Breakthrough pain usually related to background pain and is typically of rapid onset, severe in intensity and generally self limiting with a mean duration of 30 minutes. Breakthrough pain has traditionally been managed by the administration of supplemental oral analgesia (rescue medication) at a dose proportional to the total around-the-clock (ATC) opioid dose. To determine the efficacy of opioid analgesics given by any route, used for the management of breakthrough pain in patients with cancer, and to identify and quantify, if data permitted, any adverse effects of this treatment. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registries in January 2005 for the original review, and again on 6 February 2013 for this update. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of opioids used as rescue medication against active or placebo comparator in patients with cancer pain. Outcome measures sought were reduction in pain intensity measured by an appropriate scale, adverse effects, attrition, patient satisfaction and quality of life. We applied no language restrictions. Two review authors independently selected and examined eligible studies. We retrieved full text if any uncertainty about eligibility remained. We screened non-English texts. We conducted quality assessment and data extraction using standardised data forms. We compared drug and placebo dose, titration, route and formulation and recorded details of all outcome measures (if available). The original review included four studies (393 participants), all concerned with the use of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate (OTFC) in the management of breakthrough pain. Two studies examined the titration of OTFC, one study compared OTFC versus normal-release morphine and one study compared OTFC versus placebo.Fifteen studies (1699 participants) met the inclusion criteria for this update. All studies reported on the utility of seven different transmucosal fentanyl formulations, five of which were administered orally and two nasally. Eight studies compared the transmucosal fentanyl formulations versus placebo, four studies compared them with another opioid, one study was a comparison of different doses of the same formulation and two were randomised titration studies. Oral and nasal transmucosal fentanyl formulations were an effective treatment for breakthrough pain. When compared with placebo or oral morphine, participants gave lower pain intensity and higher pain relief scores for transmucosal fentanyl formulations at all time points. Global assessment scores also favoured transmucosal fentanyl preparations. One study compared intravenous with the transmucosal route and both were effective. Oral and nasal transmucosal fentanyl is an effective treatment in the management of breakthrough pain. The RCT literature for the management of breakthrough pain is relatively small. Given the importance of this subject, more trials, including head-to-head comparisons of the available transmucosal fentanyl formulations are required.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 159 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 15%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Other 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 33 20%
Unknown 40 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 67 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 12%
Psychology 11 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 39 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 17 August 2015.
All research outputs
#8,323,904
of 25,711,518 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,516
of 13,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,384
of 277,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#217
of 279 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,518 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,134 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 277,346 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 279 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.