↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Milnacipran poorly modulates pain in patients suffering from fibromyalgia: a randomized double-blind controlled study

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Milnacipran poorly modulates pain in patients suffering from fibromyalgia: a randomized double-blind controlled study
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, August 2018
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s162810
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gisèle Pickering, Nicolas Macian, Noémie Delage, Pascale Picard, Jean-Michel Cardot, Sophia Sickout-Arondo, Fatiha Giron, Christian Dualé, Bruno Pereira, Fabienne Marcaillou

Abstract

Fibromyalgia is characterized by widespread and chronic pain, and its prevalence is increasing worldwide. Milnacipran, an antidepressant, is often prescribed for fibromyalgia with a possible beneficial effect on central pain modulation. The aim of this study was to evaluate if milnacipran could modify the status of conditioned pain modulation (CPM) in patients suffering from fibromyalgia. Randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Women with fibromyalgia received milnacipran 100 mg or placebo. The primary end point was the evolution of CPM with treatments after a 30-second painful stimulus. Secondary outcomes included the predictability of milnacipran efficacy from CPM performance, evolution of global pain, mechanical sensitivity, thermal pain threshold, mechanical allodynia, cognitive function, and tolerance. Fifty-four women with fibromyalgia (46.7±10.6 years) were included and randomized, and 24 patients were analyzed in each group. At inclusion, CPM was dysfunctional (CPM30=-0.5±1.9), and global pain was 6.5±1.8. After treatment, there was a nonsignificant CPM difference between milnacipran and placebo (CPM30=-0.46±1.22 vs -0.69±1.43, respectively, p=0.55) and 18.8% vs 6.3% (p=0.085) patients did reactivate CPM after milnacipran vs placebo. Initial CPM was not a predictor of milnacipran efficacy. Global pain, mechanical and thermal thresholds, allodynia, cognition, and tolerance were not significantly different between both groups. Milnacipran did not display a significant analgesic effect after 1-month treatment, but the tendency of milnacipran to reactivate CPM in a number of patients must be explored with longer treatment duration in future studies and pleads for possible subtypes of fibromyalgia patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 29%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 13%
Student > Postgraduate 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 21%
Neuroscience 3 13%
Psychology 2 8%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 5 21%

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 29 August 2018.
All research outputs
#7,737,884
of 13,441,462 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#424
of 1,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,431
of 268,415 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#9
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,441,462 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,408 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 268,415 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.