↓ Skip to main content

Opioid rotation versus combination for cancer patients with chronic uncontrolled pain: a randomized study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 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
Opioid rotation versus combination for cancer patients with chronic uncontrolled pain: a randomized study
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12904-015-0038-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hyun-Jun Kim, Young Saing Kim, Se Hoon Park

Abstract

For cancer patients with inadequate pain relief, a switch to an alternative opioid is the preferred option for symptomatic improvement. However, multiple opioids are often simultaneously administered for anecdotal reasons. This prospective study evaluated pain response to either opioid rotation or combination in patients with uncontrolled cancer pain. Patients suffering with uncontrolled cancer pain despite dose titration were randomly assigned to opioid rotation group or opioid combination group. Patients answered a questionnaire that included items on pain severity (0 to 10) and interferences at baseline and after one week. Of the 50 patients registered, 39 patients answered the questionnaire after one week of treatment. After one week, the mean pain scores were significantly improved in both groups. Ten patients (42 %) in the rotation group and 16 patients (62 %) in the combination group reported that they achieved relief from pain (p = 0.08). The incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups, but fewer patients experienced constipation with opioid rotation than with combination (17 % vs. 42 %, respectively; p = 0.05). The frequency of rescue analgesics (50 % vs. 69 %; p = 0.17) and dose modification (29 % vs. 38 %; p = 0.49) were similar in the rotation and combination groups. For patients with chronic uncontrolled cancer pain, both opioid rotation and combination strategies appear to provide significant relief of pain and improved patient satisfaction. This study was registered in advance to ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT00478101 ).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Researcher 8 10%
Professor 4 5%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 25 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 37%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Psychology 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 26 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 08 April 2016.
All research outputs
#13,447,737
of 22,828,180 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#925
of 1,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,787
of 245,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#9
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,828,180 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,252 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 245,084 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.