↓ Skip to main content

Bisphosphonates for the relief of pain secondary to bone metastases

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2002
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 (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Citations

dimensions_citation
238 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 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
Bisphosphonates for the relief of pain secondary to bone metastases
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2002
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002068
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebecca KS Wong, Philip J Wiffen

Abstract

Bisphosphonates form part of standard therapy for hypercalcemia and the prevention of skeletal events in some cancers. However, the role of bisphosphonates in pain relief for bony metastases remains uncertain. To determine the effectiveness of bisphosphonates for the relief of pain from bone metastases. MEDLINE (1966-1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), CancerLit (1966-1999), the Cochrane library (Issue 1, 2000) and the Oxford Pain Database were searched using the strategy devised by the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group with additional terms 'diphosphonate', 'bisphosphonate', 'multiple myeloma' and 'bone neoplasms'. (Last search: January 2000). Randomized trials of bisphosphonates compared with open, blinded, or different doses/types of bisphosphonates in cancer patients were included where pain and/or analgesic consumption were outcome measures. Studies where pain was reported only by observers were excluded. Article eligibility, quality assessment and data extraction were undertaken by both reviewers. The proportions of patients with pain relief at 4, 8 and 12 weeks were assessed. The proportion of patients with analgesic reduction, the mean pain score, mean analgesic consumption, adverse drug reactions, and quality of life data were compared as secondary outcomes. Thirty randomized controlled studies (21 blinded, four open and five active control) with a total of 3682 subjects were included. For each outcome, there were few studies with available data. For the proportion of patients with pain relief (eight studies) pooled data showed benefits for the treatment group, with an NNT at 4 weeks of 11[95% CI 6-36] and at 12 weeks of 7 [95% CI 5-12]. In terms of adverse drug reactions, the NNH was 16 [95% CI 12-27] for discontinuation of therapy. Nausea and vomiting were reported in 24 studies with a non-significant trend for greater risk in the treatment group. One study showed a small improvement in quality of life for the treatment group at 4 weeks. The small number of studies in each subgroup with relevant data limited our ability to explore the most effective bisphosphonates and their relative effectiveness for different primary neoplasms. There is evidence to support the effectiveness of bisphosphonates in providing some pain relief for bone metastases. There is insufficient evidence to recommend bisphosphonates for immediate effect; as first line therapy; to define the most effective bisphosphonates or their relative effectiveness for different primary neoplasms. Bisphosphonates should be considered where analgesics and/or radiotherapy are inadequate for the management of painful bone metastases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 2%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 152 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 15%
Other 21 13%
Researcher 19 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 37 23%
Unknown 29 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 18 11%
Unknown 31 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 September 2018.
All research outputs
#4,451,321
of 18,263,379 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,663
of 11,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,735
of 196,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#128
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,263,379 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.6. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 196,221 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 77% 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 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.