↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intravenous heparin during ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysmal repair

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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
106 Mendeley
Title
Intravenous heparin during ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysmal repair
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011486.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Lammy, James P Blackmur, Jeremy MT Perkins

Abstract

There have been enormous advances in the screening, diagnosis, intervention and overall prognosis of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in the last decade, but despite these, ruptured AAAs (rAAAs) still cause around 3500 to 6000 deaths in England and Wales each year. Open repair remains standard treatment for rAAA in most centres but increasingly endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is being adopted. This has a 30-day postoperative mortality of 40%. This has remained static despite surgical, anaesthetic and critical care advances.One significant change to current practice for elective repairs of AAAs, as opposed to emergency repairs of rAAAs, has been the introduction of intravenous heparin. This provides a protective effect against cardiac and thrombotic disease in the postoperative period. This practice has not gained widespread acceptance for emergency repairs of rAAA even though a reduction in mortality and morbidity has been demonstrated in elective repairs. The primary objective was to assess the effect of intravenous heparin on all-cause mortality in ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) management in people undergoing an emergency repair.The secondary objectives were to assess the effect of intravenous heparin in rAAA management on the incidence of general arterial disease, for example, cardiovascular, cerebral, pulmonary and renal pathologies, in people undergoing emergency repair. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (December 2015). In addition the CIS searched CENTRAL;2015, Issue 11). The CIS searched clinical trials registries for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. We sought all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of intravenous heparin in rAAA repairs (including parallel designs). Two review authors independently assessed studies identified for potential inclusion in the review. We used standard methodological procedures in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions. We identified no RCTs or CCTs that satisfied the inclusion criteria. We identified no RCTs or CCTs of intravenous heparin in rAAA repairs (including parallel designs). Therefore, we were unable to assess the effect of intravenous heparin on all-cause mortality and incidence of general arterial disease, for example, cardiovascular, cerebral, pulmonary and renal pathologies in rAAA management in people undergoing an emergency repair. It is clear that an RCT is needed to address this question in rAAA management as there is no high quality evidence.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 106 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 106 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 21%
Student > Bachelor 16 15%
Researcher 10 9%
Other 9 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 22 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 24 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 06 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,044,533
of 16,096,756 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,756
of 11,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,817
of 267,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#93
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,096,756 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,396 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.8. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 267,487 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.