↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related pain in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
Title
Corticosteroids for the management of cancer-related pain in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010756.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alison Haywood, Phillip Good, Sohil Khan, Aurelia Leupp, Sue Jenkins-Marsh, Kirsty Rickett, Janet R Hardy

Abstract

One of the most feared symptoms associated with cancer is pain. Opioids remain the mainstay of pain treatment but corticosteroids are often used concurrently as co- or adjuvant analgesics. Due to their anti-inflammatory mechanism of action, corticosteroids are said to provide effective analgesia for pain associated with inflammation and in the management of cancer-related complications such as brain metastasis and spinal cord compression. However, corticosteroids have a wide range of adverse effects that are dose and time dependent. To evaluate the efficacy of corticosteroids in treating cancer-related pain in adults. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 4), MEDLINE (OVID) (1966 to 29 September 2014), EMBASE (OVID) (1970 to 29 September 2014), CINAHL (1982 to 29 September 2014), Science Citation Index (Web of Science) (1899 to 29 September 2014) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science (Web of Science) (1990 to 29 September 2014). Any randomised or prospective controlled trial that included patients over 18 years with cancer-related pain were eligible for the review. Corticosteroids were compared to placebo or usual treatment and/or supportive care. All review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used arithmetic means and standard deviations for each outcome to report the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria, enrolling 1926 participants. The trial size varied from 20 to 598 patients. Most studies compared corticosteroids, particularly dexamethasone, to standard therapy. We included six studies with data at one week in the meta-analysis for pain intensity; no data were available at that time point for the remaining studies. Corticosteroid therapy resulted in less pain (measured on a scale of 0 to 10 with a lower score indicating less pain) compared to control at one week (MD 0.84 lower pain, 95% CI 1.38 to 0.30 lower; low quality evidence). Adverse events were poorly documented. Factors limiting statistical analysis included the lack of standardised measurements of pain and the use of different agents, dosages, comparisons and routes of drug delivery. Subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not possible. The quality of this evidence was limited by the risk of bias of the studies and small sample size. The results were also compromised by attrition, with data missing for the enrolled patients. The evidence for the efficacy of corticosteroids for pain control in cancer patients is weak. Significant pain relief was noted in some studies, albeit only for a short period of time. This could be important for patients with poor clinical status. Further trials, with increased numbers of participants, are needed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of corticosteroids for the management cancer pain in adults, and to establish an ideal dose, duration of therapy and route of administration.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 156 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Student > Postgraduate 16 10%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Other 34 22%
Unknown 35 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 6%
Psychology 5 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 36 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 27 July 2020.
All research outputs
#1,045,787
of 17,443,211 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,725
of 11,692 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,488
of 236,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#68
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,443,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,692 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 236,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.