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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Chronic pain and opioid misuse: a review of reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13011-017-0120-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pauline Voon, Mohammad Karamouzian, Thomas Kerr |
| Abstract |
The crisis of prescription opioid (PO) related harms has focused attention toward identifying and treating high-risk populations. This review aims to synthesize systematic reviews on the epidemiology and clinical management of comorbid chronic pain and PO or other substance misuse. A systematic database search was conducted to identify systematic reviews published between 2000 and 2016. Eligible studies were systematic reviews related to chronic non-cancer pain and PO or other substance misuse. Evidence from the included reviews was synthesized according to epidemiology and clinical management themes. Of 1908 identified articles, 18 systematic reviews were eligible for final inclusion. Two meta-analyses estimated the prevalence of chronic non-cancer pain in individuals using POs non-medically to be approximately 48% to 60%, which is substantially higher than the prevalence of chronic non-cancer pain in general population samples (11% to 19%). Five systematic reviews estimated the rates of PO or other opioid use in chronic pain populations with substantial variation in results (0.05% to 81%), likely due to widely varying definitions of dependence, substance use disorder, misuse, addiction, and abuse. Several clinical assessment and treatment approaches were identified, including: standardized assessment instruments; urine drug testing; medication counts; prescription drug monitoring programs; blood level monitoring; treatment agreements; opioid selection; dosing and dispensing strategies; and opioid agonist treatment. However, the reviews commonly noted serious limitations, inconsistencies, and imprecision of studies, and a lack of evidence on effectiveness or clinical utility for the majority of these strategies. Overall, current systematic reviews have found a lack of high-quality evidence or consistent findings on the prevalence, risk factors, and optimal clinical assessment and treatment approaches related to concurrent chronic pain and substance misuse. Given the role of systematic reviews in guiding evidence-based medicine and health policy, there is an urgent need for high-quality primary research to guide future systematic reviews to address the escalating epidemic of harms related to chronic pain and substance misuse. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 9 | 45% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 45% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 80% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 10% |
| Scientists | 2 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 250 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 34 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 10% |
| Other | 18 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 58 | 23% |
| Unknown | 68 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 62 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 8% |
| Psychology | 18 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 15 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 46 | 18% |
| Unknown | 75 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 26 March 2024.
All research outputs
#1,233,295
of 24,387,992 outputs
Outputs from Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
#49
of 705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,321
of 320,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,387,992 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 705 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. 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 320,244 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.