↓ Skip to main content

A Systematic Review of Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy by Pain Phenotype versus Treatment Based on Medical Comorbidities

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
78 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
A Systematic Review of Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy by Pain Phenotype versus Treatment Based on Medical Comorbidities
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, June 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00285
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luiz Clemente Rolim, Edina M. Koga da Silva, João Roberto De Sá, Sérgio Atala Dib

Abstract

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) is a serious, polymorphic, and prevalent complication of diabetes mellitus. Most PDN treatment guidelines recommend a selection of drugs based on patient comorbidities. Despite the large numbers of medications available, most randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted so far have yielded unsatisfactory outcomes. Therefore, treatment may require a personalized approach based on pain phenotype or comorbidities. To evaluate whether or not a patient's pain phenotype or comorbidities can influence the response to a specific PDN treatment, we conducted a systematic review using two different approaches: pain phenotype and associated comorbidities-based treatment. Out of 45 identified papers, 7 were thoroughly reviewed. We found four RCTs stratified according to pain phenotype with three main results: (1) paroxysmal pain had a better response to pregabalin; (2) the preservation of thermal sensation or nociception anticipated a positive response to the topical treatment of pain; and, (3) after a failure to duloxetine (60 mg/day), the patients with evoked pain or severe deep pain had a better response to association of duloxetine/pregabalin while those with paresthesia/dysesthesia benefited from duloxetine monotherapy (120 mg/day). By contrast, the other three papers provided weak and even contradictory evidence about PDN treatment based on comorbidities. Although more studies are needed to provide an adequate recommendation for clinical practice, our systematic review has provided some evidence that PDN phenotyping may optimize clinical outcomes and could, in the future, lead to both less empirical medicine and more personalized pain therapeutics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 6 8%
Other 20 26%
Unknown 20 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 32%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Neuroscience 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Unspecified 4 5%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 24 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,941,384
of 22,981,247 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#6,148
of 11,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,379
of 316,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#87
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,981,247 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,865 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 316,825 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.