↓ Skip to main content

QTc interval screening for cardiac risk in methadone treatment of opioid dependence

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
QTc interval screening for cardiac risk in methadone treatment of opioid dependence
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008939.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pier Paolo Pani, Emanuela Trogu, Icro Maremmani, Matteo Pacini

Abstract

Methadone represents today the gold standard of efficacy for the pharmacological treatment of opioid dependence. Methadone, like many other medications, has been implicated in the prolongation of the rate-corrected QT (QTc) interval of the electrocardiogram (ECG), which is considered a marker for arrhythmias such as torsade de pointes (TdP). Indications on the association between methadone, even at therapeutic dosages, and TdP or sudden cardiac death have been reported. On these bases, consensus and recommendations involving QTc screening of patients receiving methadone treatment have been developed to identify patients with QTc above the thresholds considered at risk for cardiac arrhythmias, and they provide these individuals with alternative treatment (reduction of methadone dosage; provision of alternative opioid agonist treatment; treatment of associated risk factors).

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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 113 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 16%
Student > Bachelor 16 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Researcher 10 9%
Other 9 8%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 22 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Psychology 10 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 23 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 September 2019.
All research outputs
#9,788,858
of 17,413,731 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,305
of 11,672 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,713
of 223,899 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#195
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,413,731 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,672 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 223,899 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.