↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Isolation as a strategy for controlling the transmission of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in haemodialysis units

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 Mendeley
Title
Isolation as a strategy for controlling the transmission of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in haemodialysis units
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006420.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jessica I Bravo Zuñiga, César Loza Munárriz, Jesús López-Alcalde

Abstract

The hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection affects about 2% of the world's population and can cause chronic liver infection and persistent long-term sequelae such as cirrhosis and liver cancer.The prevalence of HCV infection among people on haemodialysis is often higher than the general population. The virus is easily transmitted parenterally, and blood transfusions have previously played a significant role in transmission; however, erythropoietin therapy has reduced the need for transfusions, and coupled with improved screening of donated blood, has significantly decreased transmission by transfusion. Although control of hospital-acquired infection has improved with the advent of biosafety measures, stopping HCV transmission in haemodialysis units remains challenging.Isolating people infected with HCV involves physical separation from others to limit direct or indirect transmission and includes a number of strategies during dialysis. The evidence for isolating people infected with HCV during haemodialysis is sparse with some inconsistencies. To evaluate the benefits and harms of isolation of HCV-infected patients during haemodialysis on the transmission of HCV to other patients. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 26 November 2015 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. We also searched the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature Database (LILACS) (1982 to 2015), Web of Science Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S, 1990 to 2015), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database (1990 to 2015), and Open Grey (1990 to 2015). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs and cluster RCTs evaluating the clinical benefits and harms of isolating HCV-infected patients during haemodialysis on the transmission of HCV to other patients. We considered incidence of dialysis-acquired HCV infection, all-cause mortality, and adverse effects associated with isolation as the primary outcomes. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Only one study, which included 12 centres was identified: four centres used dedicated haemodialysis machines for HCV-infected patients and eight centres used non-dedicated machines. The total number of patients enrolled was 593. One centre was excluded after randomisation. Random sequence generation was not described and allocation concealment was not performed. Participants and personnel were not blinded and blinding of outcome assessors was not reported. Only 74.5% of the patients were followed for 9 months; and 47.3% were followed for an additional 9 months. The authors only reported one outcome, measuring the difference in the incidence of HCV in both groups. The authors did not consider the exposure time, to determine the adjusted rate of seroconversion risk/patient-year. The study reported that the incidence of HCV infection during the first follow-up period (9 months) was 1.6% in the dedicated group, and 4.7% in the non-dedicated one (446 patients analysed out of 593 randomised; RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.07). During the second follow-up period (18 months) the incidence was 1.3% in the dedicated group and 5.8% in the control (281 patients analysed out of 593 randomised; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.02). Therefore, we found no differences in terms of the number of participants developing HCV infection when comparing the dedicated group with the usual care. Moreover, the evidence was of very low quality, which means that we have very little confidence in the effect estimate. The benefits and harms of isolation of HCV-infected patients during haemodialysis on the transmission of HCV to other patients are uncertain. Evidence from one short-duration cluster-randomised study with a high risk of bias did not find differences in terms of the number of participants developing HCV infection when comparing the use of dedicated haemodialysis machines for HCV infected patients with the use of non-dedicated machines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 143 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 17%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Other 10 7%
Other 30 21%
Unknown 33 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Psychology 5 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 24 17%
Unknown 39 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 03 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,818,663
of 22,882,389 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,493
of 12,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,731
of 355,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#115
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,882,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,329 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 355,869 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 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 55% of its contemporaries.