↓ Skip to main content

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for neuropathic pain in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
59 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
Paracetamol (acetaminophen) with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for neuropathic pain in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012227.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip J Wiffen, Roger Knaggs, Sheena Derry, Peter Cole, Tudor Phillips, R Andrew Moore

Abstract

Paracetamol, either alone or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, is commonly used to treat chronic neuropathic pain. This review sought evidence for efficacy and harm from randomised double-blind studies. To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of paracetamol with or without codeine or dihydrocodeine for chronic neuropathic pain in adults. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase from inception to July 2016, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and two online study registries. We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks' duration or longer, comparing paracetamol, alone or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality and potential bias. We did not carry out any pooled analyses. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. No study satisfied the inclusion criteria. Effects of interventions were not assessed as there were no included studies. We have only very low quality evidence and have no reliable indication of the likely effect. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that paracetamol alone, or in combination with codeine or dihydrocodeine, works in any neuropathic pain condition.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 59 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 21%
Student > Bachelor 14 18%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 20 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 40%
Psychology 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 25 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 08 November 2019.
All research outputs
#388,914
of 14,249,108 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,054
of 10,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,214
of 377,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#28
of 171 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,249,108 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 377,069 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 171 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.