↓ Skip to main content

Opioids for neuropathic pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
52 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
229 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
382 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 neuropathic pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006146.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ewan D McNicol, Ayelet Midbari, Elon Eisenberg

Abstract

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 3, 2006, which included 23 trials. The use of opioids for neuropathic pain remains controversial. Studies have been small, have yielded equivocal results, and have not established the long-term profile of benefits and risks for people with neuropathic pain.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 52 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 382 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 375 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 54 14%
Student > Bachelor 54 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 41 11%
Researcher 38 10%
Other 29 8%
Other 75 20%
Unknown 91 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 150 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 24 6%
Psychology 18 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 3%
Other 44 12%
Unknown 103 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 86. 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 05 September 2022.
All research outputs
#404,805
of 22,464,753 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#745
of 12,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,110
of 178,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,464,753 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 178,981 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.