↓ Skip to main content

Opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a protocol for a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Opioids for chronic non-cancer pain: a protocol for a systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2013
DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-2-66
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason W Busse, Stefan Schandelmaier, Mostafa Kamaleldin, Sandy Hsu, John J Riva, Per Olav Vandvik, Ludwig Tsoi, Tommy Lam, Shanil Ebrahim, Bradley Johnston, Lori Oliveri, Luis Montoya, Regina Kunz, Anna Malandrino, Neera Bhatnagar, Sohail M Mulla, Luciane C Lopes, Charlene Soobiah, Anthony Wong, Norman Buckley, Daniel Sessler, Gordon H Guyatt

Abstract

Opioids are prescribed frequently and increasingly for the management of chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Current systematic reviews have a number of limitations, leaving uncertainty with regard to the benefits and harms associated with opioid therapy for CNCP. We propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence for using opioids in the treatment of CNCP and the risk of associated adverse events.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 69 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 20%
Student > Master 10 14%
Professor 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 17 24%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 13 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,209,145
of 22,729,647 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,903
of 1,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,408
of 198,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#25
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,729,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 198,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.