↓ Skip to main content

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) versus opioids for acute renal colic

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) versus opioids for acute renal colic
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2004
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004137.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holdgate, A, Pollock, T, Anna Holdgate, Tamara Pollock

Abstract

Renal colic is a common cause of acute severe pain. Both opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended for treatment, but the relative efficacy of these drugs is uncertain. To examine the benefits and disadvantages of NSAIDs and opioids for the management of pain in acute renal colic. We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register (May 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Randomised Controlled Trials (CENTRAL - The Cochrane Library issue 2, 2003), MEDLINE (1966 - 31 January 2003), EMBASE (1980 - 31 January 2003) and handsearched reference lists of retrieved articles. Most recent search date: January 2005 Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any opioid with any NSAID, regardless of dose or route of administration were included. Data was extracted and quality assessed independently by two reviewers, with differences resolved by discussion. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as relative risk (RR) and measurements on continuous scales are reported as weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals. Subgroup analysis by study quality, drug type and drug route have been performed where possible to explore reasons for heterogeneity. Twenty trials from nine countries with a total of 1613 participants were identified. Both NSAIDs and opioids lead to clinically significant falls in patient-reported pain scores. Due to unexplained heterogeneity these results could not be pooled although 10/13 studies reported lower pain scores in patients receiving NSAIDs. Patients treated with NSAIDs were significantly less likely to require rescue medication (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93, P = 0.007), though most of these trials used pethidine. The majority of trials showed a higher incidence of adverse events in patients treated with opioids, but there was significant heterogeneity between studies so the results could not be pooled. There was significantly less vomiting in patients treated with NSAIDs (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.53, P < 0.00001). In particular, patients receiving pethidine had a much higher rate of vomiting compared with patients receiving NSAIDs. Gastrointestinal bleeding and renal impairment were not reported. Both NSAIDs and opioids can provide effective analgesia in acute renal colic. Opioids are associated with a higher incidence of adverse events, particularly vomiting. Given the high rate of vomiting associated with the use of opioids, particularly pethidine, and the greater likelihood of requiring further analgesia, we recommend that if an opioid is to be used it should not be pethidine.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
United States 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 70 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 18%
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 12%
Other 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 18 24%
Unknown 10 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Unspecified 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Environmental Science 1 1%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 17 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 18 May 2020.
All research outputs
#2,323,096
of 15,277,053 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,988
of 11,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,673
of 240,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#151
of 259 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,277,053 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 240,583 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 259 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.