| Title |
Opioids for the palliation of breathlessness in advanced disease and terminal illness
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd002066.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anne Louise Jennings, Andrew N Davies, Julian PT Higgins, Judith Anzures‐Cabrera, Karen E Broadley |
| Abstract |
Breathlessness is a common symptom in people with advanced disease. The most effective treatments are aimed at treating the underlying cause of the breathlessness but this may not be possible and symptomatic treatment is often necessary. Strategies for the symptomatic treatment of breathlessness have never been systematically evaluated. Opioids are commonly used to treat breathlessness: the mechanisms underlying their effectiveness are not completely clear and there have been few good-sized trials in this area. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 78 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Other | 22 | 28% |
| Unknown | 16 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 56% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 23% |
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 27 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,993,771
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,729
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,864
of 178,136 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#120
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 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 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 178,136 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 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.