↓ Skip to main content

Effect of electroacupuncture on opioid consumption in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: protocol of a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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
Effect of electroacupuncture on opioid consumption in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain: protocol of a randomised controlled trial
Published in
Trials, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1745-6215-13-169
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlie CL Xue, Robert D Helme, Stephen Gibson, Malcolm Hogg, Carolyn Arnold, Andrew A Somogyi, Cliff Da Costa, Yanyi Wang, Shao-chen Lu, Zhen Zheng

Abstract

Chronic musculoskeletal pain is common and has been increasingly managed by opioid medications, of which the long-term efficacy is unknown. Furthermore, there is evidence that long-term use of opioids is associated with reduced pain control, declining physical function and quality of life, and could hinder the goals of integrated pain management. Electroacupuncture (EA) has been shown to be effective in reducing postoperative opioid consumption. Limited evidence suggests that acupuncture could assist patients with chronic pain to reduce their requirements for opioids.The proposed research aims to assess if EA is an effective adjunct therapy to standard pain and medication management in reducing opioids use by patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 131 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 18%
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Student > Master 13 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 18 14%
Unknown 34 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Psychology 11 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 37 28%

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 17 September 2012.
All research outputs
#7,872,755
of 12,547,386 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#2,170
of 3,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,706
of 127,677 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#16
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,547,386 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. 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 127,677 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.