| Title |
Transdermal buprenorphine and fentanyl patches in cancer pain: a network systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s140320 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jin Seok Ahn, Johnson Lin, Setsuro Ogawa, Chen Yuan, Tony O’Brien, Brian HC Le, Andrea M Bothwell, Hanlim Moon, Yacine Hadjiat, Abhijith Ganapathi |
| Abstract |
Treatment of cancer pain is generally based on the three-step World Health Organization (WHO) pain relief ladder, which utilizes a sequential approach with drugs of increasing potency. Goals of pain management include optimization of analgesia, optimization of activities of daily living, minimization of adverse effects, and avoidance of aberrant drug taking. In addition, it is recommended that analgesic regimens are individualized and simplified to help ensure patient compliance and should provide the least invasive, easiest, and safest route of opioid administration to ensure adequate analgesia. Buprenorphine and fentanyl are two opioids available for the relief of moderate-to-severe cancer pain. Available clinical data regarding the transdermal (TD) formulations of these opioids and the extent to which they fulfill the recommendations mentioned earlier are systematically reviewed, with the aim of providing additional information for oncologists and pain specialists regarding their comparative use. Due to lack of studies directly comparing TD buprenorphine with TD fentanyl, data comparing these with other step-3 opioids are also evaluated in a network fashion. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 33% |
| Unknown | 4 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 109 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 17% |
| Unknown | 39 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 32% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 9 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Psychology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Unknown | 42 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 08 February 2020.
All research outputs
#2,086,183
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#250
of 1,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,320
of 317,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#14
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 317,439 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.