↓ Skip to main content

Acupuncture for cancer pain in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
39 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
216 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
Acupuncture for cancer pain in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007753.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carole A Paley, Mark I Johnson, Osama A Tashani, Anne-Marie Bagnall

Abstract

Forty per cent of individuals with early or intermediate stage cancer and 90% with advanced cancer have moderate to severe pain and up to 70% of patients with cancer pain do not receive adequate pain relief. It has been claimed that acupuncture has a role in management of cancer pain and guidelines exist for treatment of cancer pain with acupuncture. This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review published in Issue 1, 2011, on acupuncture for cancer pain in adults. To evaluate efficacy of acupuncture for relief of cancer-related pain in adults. For this update CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, and SPORTDiscus were searched up to July 2015 including non-English language papers. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any type of invasive acupuncture for pain directly related to cancer in adults aged 18 years or over. We planned to pool data to provide an overall measure of effect and to calculate the number needed to treat to benefit, but this was not possible due to heterogeneity. Two review authors (CP, OT) independently extracted data adding it to data extraction sheets. Data sheets were compared and discussed with a third review author (MJ) who acted as arbiter. Data analysis was conducted by CP, OT and MJ. We included five RCTs (285 participants). Three studies were included in the original review and two more in the update. The authors of the included studies reported benefits of acupuncture in managing pancreatic cancer pain; no difference between real and sham electroacupuncture for pain associated with ovarian cancer; benefits of acupuncture over conventional medication for late stage unspecified cancer; benefits for auricular (ear) acupuncture over placebo for chronic neuropathic pain related to cancer; and no differences between conventional analgesia and acupuncture within the first 10 days of treatment for stomach carcinoma. All studies had a high risk of bias from inadequate sample size and a low risk of bias associated with random sequence generation. Only three studies had low risk of bias associated with incomplete outcome data, while two studies had low risk of bias associated with allocation concealment and one study had low risk of bias associated with inadequate blinding. The heterogeneity of methodologies, cancer populations and techniques used in the included studies precluded pooling of data and therefore meta-analysis was not carried out. A subgroup analysis on acupuncture for cancer-induced bone pain was not conducted because none of the studies made any reference to bone pain. Studies either reported that there were no adverse events as a result of treatment, or did not report adverse events at all. There is insufficient evidence to judge whether acupuncture is effective in treating cancer pain in adults.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 6 3%
Spain 4 2%
Denmark 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 200 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 41 19%
Researcher 28 13%
Student > Master 28 13%
Unspecified 22 10%
Other 21 10%
Other 75 35%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 102 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 13%
Unspecified 26 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 7%
Psychology 12 6%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#372,990
of 13,370,991 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,079
of 10,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,685
of 253,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#39
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,370,991 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,570 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 253,024 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.