| Title |
Oxycodone for cancer‐related pain
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003870.pub5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Schmidt-Hansen M, Bennett MI, Arnold S, Bromham N, Hilgart JS |
| Abstract |
Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong opioids, of which oxycodone and morphine are examples. Strong opioids are, however, not effective for pain in all patients, nor are they well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this review was to assess whether oxycodone is associated with better pain relief and tolerability than other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 60 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 9 | 15% |
| United Kingdom | 9 | 15% |
| Colombia | 3 | 5% |
| Canada | 2 | 3% |
| El Salvador | 2 | 3% |
| Australia | 2 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Mexico | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 26 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 44 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 12 | 20% |
| Scientists | 3 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 119 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 23 | 19% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 13% |
| Researcher | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 11% |
| Other | 23 | 19% |
| Unknown | 20 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 36% |
| Psychology | 15 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Unknown | 20 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 28 September 2015.
All research outputs
#1,231,480
of 25,708,267 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,570
of 13,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,983
of 270,982 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#59
of 279 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,708,267 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,139 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 270,982 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.