↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Radioisotopes for metastatic bone pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
13 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Radioisotopes for metastatic bone pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003347.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marta Roqué I Figuls, Maria José Martinez-Zapata, Martin Scott-Brown, Pablo Alonso-Coello

Abstract

This is an update of the review published in Issue 4, 2003. Bone metastasis cause severe pain as well as pathological fractures, hypercalcaemia and spinal cord compression. Treatment strategies currently available to relieve pain from bone metastases include analgesia, radiotherapy, surgery, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, radioisotopes and bisphosphonates. To determine efficacy and safety of radioisotopes in patients with bone metastases to improve metastatic pain, decrease number of complications due to bone metastases and improve patient survival. We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the PaPaS Trials Register up to October 2010. Studies selected had metastatic bone pain as a major outcome after treatment with a radioisotope, compared with placebo or another radioisotope. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies by their sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of study participants, researchers and outcome assessors, and incomplete outcome data. Two review authors extracted data. We performed statistical analysis as an "available case" analysis, and calculated global estimates of effect using a random-effects model. We also performed an intention-to-treat (ITT) sensitivity analysis. This update includes 15 studies (1146 analyzed participants): four (325 participants) already included and 11 new (821 participants). Only three studies had a low risk of bias. We observed a small benefit of radioisotopes for complete relief (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.35; Number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) = 5) and complete/partial relief (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.63; NNT = 4) in the short and medium term (eight studies, 499 participants). There is no conclusive evidence to demonstrate that radioisotopes modify the use of analgesia with respect to placebo. Leucocytopenia and thrombocytopenia are secondary effects significantly associated with the administration of radioisotopes (RR 5.03; 95% CI 1.35 to 18.70; Number needed to treat to harm (NNH) = 13). Pain flares were not higher in the radioisotopes group (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.27 to 2.06). There are scarce data of moderate quality when comparing Strontium-89 ((89)Sr) with Samarium-153 ((153)Sm), Rhenium-186 ((186)Re) and Phosphorus-32 ((32)P). We observed no significant differences between treatments. Similarly, we observed no differences when we compared different doses of (153)Sm (0.5 versus 1.0 mCi). This update adds new evidence on efficacy of radioisotopes versus placebo, (89)Sr compared with other radioisotopes, and dose-comparisons of (153)Sm and (188)Re. There is some evidence indicating that radioisotopes may provide complete reduction in pain over one to six months with no increase in analgesic use, but severe adverse effects (leucocytopenia and thrombocytopenia) are frequent.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 86 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 13%
Other 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 26 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 26 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 21 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,816,167
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,009
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,181
of 322,878 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#151
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 322,878 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.