↓ Skip to main content

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for neuropathic pain

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
39 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
213 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
Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for neuropathic pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010902.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

R Andrew Moore, Ching-Chi Chi, Philip J Wiffen, Sheena Derry, Andrew SC Rice

Abstract

Although often considered to be lacking adequate evidence, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the management of neuropathic pain. Previous surveys found 18% to 47% of affected people reported using NSAIDs specifically for their neuropathic pain, although possibly not in the United Kingdom (UK). To assess the analgesic efficacy of oral NSAIDs for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, when compared to placebo or another active intervention, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 29 May 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and an online trials registry. We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analysis. We included two studies involving 251 participants with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component or postherpetic neuralgia; 209 of these participants were involved in a study of an experimental NSAID not used in clinical practice, and of the remaining 42, only 16 had neuropathic pain. This represented only third tier evidence, and was of very low quality. There was no indication of any significant pain reduction with NSAIDs. Adverse event rates were low, with insufficient events for any analysis. There is no evidence to support or refute the use of oral NSAIDs to treat neuropathic pain conditions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 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 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 211 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 13%
Student > Bachelor 26 12%
Researcher 20 9%
Other 17 8%
Other 48 23%
Unknown 30 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 86 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 7%
Neuroscience 9 4%
Psychology 7 3%
Other 27 13%
Unknown 42 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 16 February 2021.
All research outputs
#877,300
of 17,053,340 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,335
of 11,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,661
of 257,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#75
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,053,340 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,621 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 257,891 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.