↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacology of Itch

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 17: Neuraxial Opioid-Induced Itch and Its Pharmacological Antagonism.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
42 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.
Chapter title
Neuraxial Opioid-Induced Itch and Its Pharmacological Antagonism.
Chapter number 17
Book title
Pharmacology of Itch
Published in
Handbook of experimental pharmacology, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/978-3-662-44605-8_17
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-66-244604-1, 978-3-66-244605-8
Authors

Ko, Mei-Chuan, Mei-Chuan Ko

Abstract

Given its profound analgesic nature, neuraxial opioids are frequently used for pain management. Unfortunately, the high incident rate of itch/pruritus after spinal administration of opioid analgesics reported in postoperative and obstetric patients greatly diminishes patient satisfaction and thus the value of the analgesics. Many endeavors to solve the mystery behind neuraxial opioid-induced itch had not been successful, as the pharmacological antagonism other than the blockade of mu opioid receptors remains elusive. Nevertheless, as the characteristics of all opioid receptor subtypes have become more understood, more studies have shed light on the potential effective treatments. This review discusses the mechanisms underlying neuraxial opioid-induced itch and compares pharmacological evidence in nonhuman primates with clinical findings across diverse drugs. Both nonhuman primate and human studies corroborate that mixed mu/kappa opioid partial agonists seem to be the most effective drugs in ameliorating neuraxial opioid-induced itch while retaining neuraxial opioid-induced analgesia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 41 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 31%
Student > Master 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 11 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 38%
Neuroscience 4 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 10 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 April 2015.
All research outputs
#15,333,503
of 22,805,349 outputs
Outputs from Handbook of experimental pharmacology
#394
of 648 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,960
of 353,087 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Handbook of experimental pharmacology
#42
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,805,349 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 648 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 353,087 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.