↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Drug therapy for symptoms associated with anxiety in adult palliative care patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
188 Mendeley
Title
Drug therapy for symptoms associated with anxiety in adult palliative care patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004596.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan Salt, Caroline A Mulvaney, Nancy J Preston

Abstract

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2004 (Issue 1) and previously updated in 2012 (Issue 10). Anxiety is common in palliative care patients. It can be a natural response to the complex uncertainty of having a life-limiting illness or impending death, but it may represent a clinically significant issue in its own right. To assess the effectiveness of drug therapy for treating symptoms of anxiety in adults with a progressive life-limiting illness who are thought to be in their last year of life. We ran the searches for this update to May 2016. We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), PsychLIT (Silver Platter) and PsycINFO (Ovid). We searched seven trials registers and seven pharmaceutical industry trials registers. We handsearched the conference abstracts of the European Association of Palliative Care. Randomised controlled trials which examined the effect of drug therapy for the treatment of symptoms of anxiety in adult palliative care patients, that is, people with a known progressive life-limiting illness that is no longer responsive to curative treatment, including advanced heart, respiratory and neurological diseases (including dementia). Comparator treatments included placebo; another drug therapy or different dose schedule; or a non-drug intervention such as counselling, cognitive behaviour therapies or relaxation therapies. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts to identify potentially relevant papers for inclusion in the review. We sought full-text reports for all papers retained at this stage and two reviews authors independently assessed these for inclusion in the review. We planned to assess risk of bias and extract data including information on adverse events. We planned to assess the evidence using GRADE and to create a 'Summary of findings' table. In this update, we identified 707 potentially relevant papers and of these we sought the full-text reports of 10 papers. On examination of these full-text reports, we excluded eight and two are awaiting classification as we have insufficient information to make a decision. Thus, in this update, we found no studies which met our inclusion criteria. For the original review, we identified, and then excluded, the full-text reports of six potentially relevant studies. For the 2012 update, we sought, and excluded, two full-text reports. Thus, we found no studies that assessed the effectiveness of drugs to treat symptoms of anxiety in palliative care patients. There is a lack of evidence to draw a conclusion about the effectiveness of drug therapy for symptoms of anxiety in adult palliative care patients. To date, we have found no studies that meet the inclusion criteria for this review. We are awaiting further information for two studies which may be included in a future update. Randomised controlled trials which assess management of anxiety as a primary endpoint are required to establish the benefits and harms of drug therapy for the treatment of anxiety in palliative care.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 188 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 188 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 16%
Student > Bachelor 28 15%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 34 18%
Unknown 49 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 14%
Psychology 14 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 6%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 62 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 28 June 2020.
All research outputs
#2,831,603
of 16,505,296 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,568
of 11,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,967
of 270,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#155
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,505,296 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,518 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 270,209 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.