↓ 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 (81st 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

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
United States 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 86 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 20%
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 6 7%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 10%
Decision Sciences 2 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 23 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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
#2,912,937
of 17,749,513 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,515
of 11,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,283
of 246,497 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,749,513 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 11,759 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 246,497 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.