↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Opioid vs Nonopioid Medications on Pain-Related Function in Patients With Chronic Back Pain or Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis Pain: The SPACE Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, March 2018
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
705 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1008 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Effect of Opioid vs Nonopioid Medications on Pain-Related Function in Patients With Chronic Back Pain or Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis Pain: The SPACE Randomized Clinical Trial
Published in
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, March 2018
DOI 10.1001/jama.2018.0899
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erin E. Krebs, Amy Gravely, Sean Nugent, Agnes C. Jensen, Beth DeRonne, Elizabeth S. Goldsmith, Kurt Kroenke, Matthew J. Bair, Siamak Noorbaloochi

Abstract

Limited evidence is available regarding long-term outcomes of opioids compared with nonopioid medications for chronic pain. To compare opioid vs nonopioid medications over 12 months on pain-related function, pain intensity, and adverse effects. Pragmatic, 12-month, randomized trial with masked outcome assessment. Patients were recruited from Veterans Affairs primary care clinics from June 2013 through December 2015; follow-up was completed December 2016. Eligible patients had moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain despite analgesic use. Of 265 patients enrolled, 25 withdrew prior to randomization and 240 were randomized. Both interventions (opioid and nonopioid medication therapy) followed a treat-to-target strategy aiming for improved pain and function. Each intervention had its own prescribing strategy that included multiple medication options in 3 steps. In the opioid group, the first step was immediate-release morphine, oxycodone, or hydrocodone/acetaminophen. For the nonopioid group, the first step was acetaminophen (paracetamol) or a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Medications were changed, added, or adjusted within the assigned treatment group according to individual patient response. The primary outcome was pain-related function (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI] interference scale) over 12 months and the main secondary outcome was pain intensity (BPI severity scale). For both BPI scales (range, 0-10; higher scores = worse function or pain intensity), a 1-point improvement was clinically important. The primary adverse outcome was medication-related symptoms (patient-reported checklist; range, 0-19). Among 240 randomized patients (mean age, 58.3 years; women, 32 [13.0%]), 234 (97.5%) completed the trial. Groups did not significantly differ on pain-related function over 12 months (overall P = .58); mean 12-month BPI interference was 3.4 for the opioid group and 3.3 for the nonopioid group (difference, 0.1 [95% CI, -0.5 to 0.7]). Pain intensity was significantly better in the nonopioid group over 12 months (overall P = .03); mean 12-month BPI severity was 4.0 for the opioid group and 3.5 for the nonopioid group (difference, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.0 to 1.0]). Adverse medication-related symptoms were significantly more common in the opioid group over 12 months (overall P = .03); mean medication-related symptoms at 12 months were 1.8 in the opioid group and 0.9 in the nonopioid group (difference, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]). Treatment with opioids was not superior to treatment with nonopioid medications for improving pain-related function over 12 months. Results do not support initiation of opioid therapy for moderate to severe chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01583985.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,044 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,008 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1008 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 122 12%
Other 111 11%
Student > Master 106 11%
Student > Bachelor 101 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 71 7%
Other 247 25%
Unknown 250 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 371 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 94 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 63 6%
Psychology 29 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 3%
Other 118 12%
Unknown 305 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3133. 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 02 January 2024.
All research outputs
#2,080
of 25,884,216 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#73
of 36,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18
of 350,144 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#4
of 385 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,884,216 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 36,916 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 350,144 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 385 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 98% of its contemporaries.