| Title |
Assessment and treatment of breakthrough cancer pain: from theory to clinical practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Pain Research, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/jpr.s135807 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Renato Vellucci, Rocco Domenico Mediati, Silvia Gasperoni, Massimo Mammucari, Franco Marinangeli, Patrizia Romualdi |
| Abstract |
Breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) is a common condition in oncological patients. However, its management is still suboptimal. Improved knowledge of BTcP and its management in clinical practice may have immediate importance for all physicians involved in the supportive care of cancer patients. This review critically discusses the most important concepts for the correct diagnosis of BTcP and presents some intriguing cases of the management of this condition in clinical practice. Overall, the most appropriate therapeutic choice appears to be a rapid-onset opioid (ROO), and in particular, the nasal route of administration is the quickest and most convenient mode of administration for the management of BTcP, especially when the patient needs rapid resolution of pain. To this end, intranasal fentanyl spray may have a particular relevance in clinical practice. Future research should focus on accepted definitions of BTcP to investigate the optimal management of this highly heterogeneous pain condition. Therapeutic decision-making of patients, clinicians, and payers will likely be driven from results of well-designed clinical trials of ROOs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 68 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 15 | 22% |
| Unknown | 25 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 4% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 25 | 37% |
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 27 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,879,822
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pain Research
#1,123
of 1,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,471
of 324,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pain Research
#31
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,969 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 324,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.