↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Options for treating postherpetic neuralgia in the medically complicated patient

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
Title
Options for treating postherpetic neuralgia in the medically complicated patient
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2013
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s47138
Pubmed ID
Authors

Patricia Bruckenthal, Robert L Barkin

Abstract

Patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) are often of advanced age or immunocompromised and likely to have ≥1 comorbid medical condition for which they receive ≥1 medication (polypharmacy). Comorbidities affecting renal or hepatic function can alter pharmacokinetics, thereby impacting the efficacy or tolerability of PHN analgesic therapies. Cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, or psychiatric comorbidities may increase patient vulnerability to potential adverse events associated with some PHN analgesic therapies. Because PHN is a localized condition, localized therapy with a topical analgesic (lidocaine patch 5% and capsaicin 8% patch or cream) may provide adequate efficacy while mitigating the risk of systemic adverse events compared with oral analgesics (eg, tricyclic antidepressants, anticonvulsants, opioids). However, combined therapy with a topical and an oral analgesic or with >1 oral analgesic may be needed for optimal pain management in some patients. This review summarizes how comorbidities and concomitant medications should be taken into account when selecting among available pharmacotherapies for PHN and provides recommendations for the selection of therapies that will provide analgesia while minimizing the risk of adverse events.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Egypt 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 19%
Student > Master 8 17%
Researcher 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 9 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Engineering 2 4%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
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 17 November 2013.
All research outputs
#7,118,925
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#339
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,681
of 210,451 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#1
of 9 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 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 210,451 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them