↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Topical preparations for pain relief: efficacy and patient adherence

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pain Research, December 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
3 X users
patent
3 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
3 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
144 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
284 Mendeley
Title
Topical preparations for pain relief: efficacy and patient adherence
Published in
Journal of Pain Research, December 2010
DOI 10.2147/jpr.s9492
Pubmed ID
Authors

Liliana L Jorge, Caroline C Feres, Vitor EP Teles

Abstract

There has been an increasing focus on development of new routes of drug administration to provide tailored treatments for patients, without decreasing efficacy of analgesia, in proportion to the progression of the knowledge of pain mechanisms. While acute pain acts as an alarm, chronic pain is a syndrome requiring meticulous selection of analgesic drugs of high bioavailability for long-term use. Such criteria are challenges that topical medications aim to overcome, allowing progressive delivery of active component, maintaining stable plasma levels, with a good safety profile. This review presents recent findings regarding topical formulations of the most widely used drugs for pain treatment, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, anesthetics, and capsaicin, and the role of physical agents as delivery enhancers (phonophoresis and iontophoresis). Although the number of topical agents is limited for use in peripheral conditions, increasing evidence supports the efficacy of these preparations in blocking nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Patient adherence to medical treatment is also a challenge, especially in chronic painful conditions. It is known that reduction of treatment complexity and pill burden are good strategies to increase patient compliance, as discussed here. However, the role of topical presentations, when compared to traditional routes, has not yet been fully explored and thus remains unclear.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 284 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 280 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 13%
Student > Master 36 13%
Student > Bachelor 34 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 9%
Other 24 8%
Other 61 21%
Unknown 65 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 27%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 44 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 4%
Engineering 11 4%
Other 40 14%
Unknown 72 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 50. 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 13 February 2023.
All research outputs
#829,690
of 25,134,448 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#108
of 1,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,668
of 193,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,134,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 193,457 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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