↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Update on prescription extended-release opioids and appropriate patient selection

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Update on prescription extended-release opioids and appropriate patient selection
Published in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, July 2013
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s38562
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael J Brennan

Abstract

Chronic pain is largely underdiagnosed, often undertreated, and expected to increase as the American population ages. Many patients with chronic pain require long-term treatment with analgesic medications, and pain management may involve use of prescription opioids for patients whose pain is inadequately controlled through other therapies. Yet because of the potential for abuse and addiction, many clinicians hesitate to treat their patients with pain with potentially beneficial agents. Finding the right opioid for the right patient is the first - often complicated - step. Ensuring that patients continue to properly use the medication while achieving therapeutic analgesic effects is the long-term goal. Combined with careful patient selection and ongoing monitoring, new formulations using extended-release technologies incorporating tamper-resistant features may help combat the growing risk of abuse or misuse, which will hopefully reduce individual suffering and the societal burden of chronic pain. The objective of this manuscript is to provide an update on extended-release opioids and to provide clinicians with a greater understanding of which patients might benefit from these new opioid formulations and how to integrate the recommended monitoring for abuse potential into clinical practice.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 2%
Germany 1 2%
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 45 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 13%
Other 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 35%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Psychology 3 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 11 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 18 July 2017.
All research outputs
#7,118,925
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#270
of 991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,201
of 207,028 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 207,028 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.