↓ Skip to main content

Critical appraisal of extended-release hydrocodone for chronic pain: patient considerations

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Critical appraisal of extended-release hydrocodone for chronic pain: patient considerations
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, October 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s81979
Pubmed ID
Authors

Harry J Gould, Dennis Paul

Abstract

Opioid analgesics are currently the most effective pharmacologic option for the management of both acute and chronic forms of moderate-to-severe pain. Although the "as-needed" use of immediate-release formulations is considered optimum for treating acute, painful episodes of limited duration, the scheduled dosing of extended-release formulations with immediate-release supplementation for breakthrough pain is regarded to be most effective for managing chronic conditions requiring around-the-clock treatment. The recent introduction of extended-release formulations of the opioid analgesic hydrocodone potentially broadened the possibility of providing pain relief for individuals for whom current formulations are either ineffective or not tolerated. However, reaction to the approval of the new formulations has fueled controversy over the general safety and need for opioid medications, in light of their potential for misuse, abuse, diversion, and addiction. Here, we discuss how the approval of extended-release formulations of hydrocodone and the emotionally charged controversy over their release may affect physician prescribing and the care available to patients in need of chronic opioid therapy for the management of pain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 5 24%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 38%
Social Sciences 3 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 3 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 November 2015.
All research outputs
#7,896,698
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#408
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,128
of 286,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#16
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 286,876 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 69% of its contemporaries.