| Title |
An approach to long-term sedative-hypnotic use
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nature and science of sleep, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/nss.s28362 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Azmeh Shahid, Sharon A Chung, Ron Phillipson, Colin M Shapiro |
| Abstract |
Insomnia is a common, often chronic medical disorder with significant medical and socioeconomic repercussions. However, unlike other medical conditions, there is intense debate as to whether the long-term treatment of insomnia is clinically appropriate. The perceived deleterious side effect of sedative-hypnotic medications may result in patients remaining untreated or undertreated. This review proposes that a more subtle approach needs to be taken in the management of patients with chronic insomnia and that long-term use of the newer sedative-hypnotics may be a feasible and effective treatment option when used in conjunction with thorough medical assessment and regular patient follow-up. This review discusses these issues and discusses the pros and cons of long-term sedative-hypnotic use. |
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 | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 17% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 7 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 40% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 7 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 15 June 2020.
All research outputs
#7,118,925
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Nature and science of sleep
#249
of 629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,648
of 173,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature and science of sleep
#3
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 173,277 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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.