↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Tapentadol for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
16 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 Mendeley
Title
Tapentadol for chronic musculoskeletal pain in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009923.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

João Santos, Joana Alarcão, Filipa Fareleira, António Vaz Carneiro, João Costa

Abstract

Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a prevalent condition and a major cause of disability and absence from the workplace worldwide. Opioids are frequently used to treat chronic pain, although adverse effects often restrict their long-term benefits. Tapentadol is an opioid and norepinephrine re-uptake inhibitor, which may cause a lower incidence (and severity) of adverse effects compared to other strong opioids. To determine the efficacy, safety and tolerability of tapentadol extended release for moderate-to-severe pain for at least three months for any musculoskeletal cause. We searched electronic databases (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science) to March 2014, unrestricted by language, as well as trials registers and reference lists from retrieved studies. We contacted drug manufacturers for further information. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of tapentadol in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain, compared to placebo or active control. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. We performed two meta-analyses for the comparisons tapentadol extended release vs. placebo, and tapentadol extended release vs. active-control (oxycodone). We used random-effects and fixed-effect models according to the presence or not of heterogeneity, respectively. Also, we performed subgroup analyses. The primary efficacy outcome was pain control assessed by change in pain intensity scores and responder's rate (at least 50% pain relief). Primary safety outcome was withdrawal rate due to adverse effects. Four parallel-design RCTs of moderate quality including 4094 patients with osteoarthritis or back pain, or both, met the inclusion criteria. Three trials were phase III studies with 12-weeks follow-up and the fourth trial was an open-label safety study of 52-weeks follow-up. All trials were oxycodone-controlled and three were also placebo-controlled. Two trials included patients with knee osteoarthritis, one evaluated patients with low back pain and one enrolled both. All studies reported last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) as imputation method. We requested baseline-observation-carried-forward (BOCF) imputed analyses and any unpublished data from the manufacturer but the manufacturers denied the request. Two out of the four oxycodone-controlled studies and one out of the three placebo-controlled studies did not provided data on responder's rate. Two studies were considered to be of high risk of bias.In comparison to placebo, tapentadol was associated with a mean reduction of 0.56 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 0.20) in the 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS) at 12 weeks and with a 1.36 increase (95% CI 1.13 to 1.64) in the risk of responding to treatment (number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 16; 95% CI 9 to 57, for 12-weeks). Moderate-to-high heterogeneity was found for the efficacy outcome estimates. Tapentadol was associated with a 2.7 fold increase (95% CI 2.05 to 3.52) in the risk of discontinuing treatment due to adverse effects number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 10; 95%CI 7 to 12, for 12 weeks).In comparison to oxycodone, pooled data showed a 0.24 points (95%CI 0.43 to 0.05) reduction in pain intensity from baseline in the 11-point NRS. The two studies that evaluated responder's rate showed a non-significant 1.46 increase (95% CI 0.92 to 2.32) in the risk of responding to treatment among tapentadol treated patients. Tapentadol was associated with a 50% risk reduction (95% CI 42% to 60%) of discontinuing treatment due to adverse effects (NNTB 6; 95% CI 5 to 7, for 12 weeks). Tapentadol was also associated with a 9% reduction (95% CI 4 to 15) in the overall risk of adverse effects (NNTH 18; 95% CI 12 to 35, for 12 weeks) and with a non-significant 43% reduction (95% CI 33 to 76) in the risk of serious adverse effects. Moderate to high heterogeneity was found for most efficacy (except for the primary outcome) and safety outcome estimates. Subgroup analysis showed a higher improvement with tapentadol among patients with knee osteoarthritis and among pooled results from studies of higher quality and shorter follow-up period, although there were no statistical significant differences in the effect size between these subgroups. Tapentadol extended release is associated with a reduction in pain intensity in comparison to placebo and oxycodone. However, the clinical significance of the results is uncertain due to the following reasons: modest difference between interventions in efficacy outcomes, high heterogeneity in some comparisons and outcomes, high withdrawals rates, lack of data for the primary outcome in some studies and impossibility to use BOCF as imputation method. Tapentadol is associated with a more favourable safety profile and tolerability than oxycodone.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 285 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 49 17%
Researcher 31 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 28 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 7%
Other 19 7%
Other 56 20%
Unknown 83 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 9%
Psychology 20 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 5%
Neuroscience 7 2%
Other 27 9%
Unknown 94 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 29 August 2021.
All research outputs
#3,023,383
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,675
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,564
of 280,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 267 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 280,978 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 267 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 56% of its contemporaries.