↓ Skip to main content

NSAIDS or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
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 (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
NSAIDS or paracetamol, alone or combined with opioids, for cancer pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005180.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ewan D McNicol, Scott Strassels, Leonidas Goudas, Joseph Lau, Daniel B Carr

Abstract

NSAIDs are widely applied to treat cancer pain and are frequently combined with opioids in combination preparations for this purpose. However, it is unclear which agent is most clinically efficacious for relieving cancer-related pain, or even what may be the additional benefit of combining an NSAID with an opioid in this setting. To assess the effects of NSAIDs, alone or combined with opioids, for the treatment of cancer pain. CENTRAL (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (January 1966 to March 2003), EMBASE (January 1980 to December 2001), LILACS (January 1984 to December 2001) were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials that compared NSAID versus placebo; NSAID versus NSAID; NSAID versus NSAID plus opioid; opioid versus opioid plus NSAID; or NSAID versus opioid. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse event information was collected from trials. Where there was disagreement between reviewers, the opinion of an additional reviewer was sought to resolve the issue. Forty-two trials involving 3084 patients were included. Clinical heterogeneity of study methods and outcomes precluded meta-analyses and only supported a qualitative systematic review. Seven of eight papers that compared NSAID with placebo demonstrated superior efficacy of NSAID with no difference in side effects. Thirteen papers compared one NSAID with another; four reported increased efficacy of one NSAID over another. Four different studies found that one NSAID had fewer side effects than one or more others. Twenty-three studies compared NSAIDs and opioids in combination or alone with NSAID/opioid combinations. Thirteen out of 14 studies found no difference, or low clinical difference, when combining an NSAID plus an opioid versus either drug alone. Comparisons between various NSAID/opioid combinations were inconclusive. Nine studies assessed the association between dose and efficacy and safety. Four papers demonstrated increased efficacy with increased dose, but no dose-dependent increase in side effects within the dose ranges studied. Study duration ranged from single dose studies performed over six hours to crossover studies lasting six weeks; however, the majority of studies were of less than seven days duration. Based upon limited data, NSAIDs appear to be more effective than placebo for cancer pain; clear evidence to support superior safety or efficacy of one NSAID over another is lacking; and trials of combinations of an NSAID with an opioid have disclosed either no difference (4 out of 14 papers), a statistically insignificant trend towards superiority (1 out of 14 papers), or at most a slight but statistically significant advantage (9 out of 14 papers), compared with either single entity. The short duration of studies undermines generalization of their findings on efficacy and safety of NSAIDs for cancer pain.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Unknown 63 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 19%
Student > Postgraduate 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Other 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 19 28%
Unknown 5 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 10 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 22 August 2017.
All research outputs
#1,947,113
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,439
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,164
of 264,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#85
of 145 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% 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 264,018 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 145 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.