↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for neuropathic pain

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
twitter
38 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
98 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 Mendeley
Title
Oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for neuropathic pain
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010902.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

R Andrew Moore, Ching-Chi Chi, Philip J Wiffen, Sheena Derry, Andrew SC Rice

Abstract

Although often considered to be lacking adequate evidence, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are widely used in the management of neuropathic pain. Previous surveys found 18% to 47% of affected people reported using NSAIDs specifically for their neuropathic pain, although possibly not in the United Kingdom (UK). To assess the analgesic efficacy of oral NSAIDs for chronic neuropathic pain in adults, when compared to placebo or another active intervention, and the adverse events associated with its use in clinical trials. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE from inception to 29 May 2015, together with reference lists of retrieved papers and reviews, and an online trials registry. We included randomised, double-blind studies of two weeks duration or longer, comparing any oral NSAID with placebo or another active treatment in chronic neuropathic pain. Two review authors independently searched for studies, extracted efficacy and adverse event data, and examined issues of study quality. We did not carry out any pooled analysis. We included two studies involving 251 participants with chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component or postherpetic neuralgia; 209 of these participants were involved in a study of an experimental NSAID not used in clinical practice, and of the remaining 42, only 16 had neuropathic pain. This represented only third tier evidence, and was of very low quality. There was no indication of any significant pain reduction with NSAIDs. Adverse event rates were low, with insufficient events for any analysis. There is no evidence to support or refute the use of oral NSAIDs to treat neuropathic pain conditions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 284 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 18%
Student > Bachelor 38 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 11%
Researcher 22 8%
Other 20 7%
Other 64 22%
Unknown 59 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 105 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 30 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 6%
Neuroscience 13 5%
Unspecified 8 3%
Other 40 14%
Unknown 72 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 73. 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 December 2021.
All research outputs
#490,261
of 22,769,322 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#939
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,820
of 277,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 291 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,769,322 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 277,381 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 291 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.