↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

QTc interval screening for cardiac risk in methadone treatment of opioid dependence

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 Mendeley
Title
QTc interval screening for cardiac risk in methadone treatment of opioid dependence
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008939.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pier Paolo Pani, Emanuela Trogu, Icro Maremmani, Matteo Pacini

Abstract

Methadone represents today the gold standard of efficacy for the pharmacological treatment of opioid dependence. Methadone, like many other medications, has been implicated in the prolongation of the rate-corrected QT (QTc) interval of the electrocardiogram (ECG), which is considered a marker for arrhythmias such as torsade de pointes (TdP). Indications on the association between methadone, even at therapeutic dosages, and TdP or sudden cardiac death have been reported. On these bases, consensus and recommendations involving QTc screening of patients receiving methadone treatment have been developed to identify patients with QTc above the thresholds considered at risk for cardiac arrhythmias, and they provide these individuals with alternative treatment (reduction of methadone dosage; provision of alternative opioid agonist treatment; treatment of associated risk factors).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 176 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 14%
Student > Bachelor 25 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 9%
Other 13 7%
Researcher 9 5%
Other 33 19%
Unknown 56 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 9%
Psychology 12 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 57 32%
Attention Score in Context

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 28 September 2019.
All research outputs
#7,240,861
of 25,932,719 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,657
of 13,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,175
of 210,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#178
of 282 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,932,719 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 13,164 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.2. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% 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 210,378 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 282 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.