| Title |
Management of chronic pain in the elderly: focus on transdermal buprenorphine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, September 2008
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s1880 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nalini Vadivelu, Roberta L Hines |
| Abstract |
Chronic pain in the elderly is a significant problem. Pharmacokinetic and metabolic changes associated with increased age makes the elderly vulnerable to side effects and overdosing associated with analgesic agents. Therefore the management of chronic cancer pain and chronic nonmalignant pain in this growing population is an ongoing challenge. New routes of administration have opened up new treatment options to meet this challenge. The transdermal buprenorphine matrix allows for slow release of buprenorphine and damage does not produce dose dumping. In addition the long-acting analgesic property and relative safety profile makes it a suitable choice for the treatment of chronic pain in the elderly. Its safe use in the presence of renal failure makes it an attractive choice for older individuals. Recent scientific studies have shown no evidence of a ceiling dose of analgesia in man but only a ceiling effect for respiratory depression, increasing its safety profile. It appears that transdermal buprenorphine can be used in clinical practice safely and efficaciously for treating chronic pain in the elderly. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Colombia | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 84 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 16% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Researcher | 13 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 15 | 17% |
| Unknown | 18 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 37 | 42% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 6% |
| Psychology | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 11% |
| Unknown | 22 | 25% |
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 18 January 2022.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,182
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,848
of 95,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#9
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 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 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 95,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.