↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Cilostazol for intermittent claudication

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2021
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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Cilostazol for intermittent claudication
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2021
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003748.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tamara Brown, Rachel B Forster, Marcus Cleanthis, Dimitri P Mikhailidis, Gerard Stansby, Marlene Stewart

Abstract

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) affects between 4% and 12% of people aged 55 to 70 years, and 20% of people over 70 years. A common complaint is intermittent claudication (exercise-induced lower limb pain relieved by rest). These patients have a three- to six-fold increase in cardiovascular mortality.  Cilostazol is a drug licensed for the use of improving claudication distance and, if shown to reduce cardiovascular risk, could offer additional clinical benefits. This is an update of the review first published in 2007. To determine the effect of cilostazol on initial and absolute claudication distances, mortality and vascular events in patients with stable intermittent claudication. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries, on 9 November 2020. We considered double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cilostazol versus placebo, or versus other drugs used to improve claudication distance in patients with stable intermittent claudication. Two authors independently assessed trials for selection and independently extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. For dichotomous outcomes, we used odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and for continuous outcomes we used mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model, or a random-effects model when heterogeneity was identified. Primary outcomes were initial claudication distance (ICD) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were absolute claudication distance (ACD), revascularisation, amputation, adverse events and cardiovascular events. We included 16 double-blind, RCTs (3972 participants) comparing cilostazol with placebo, of which five studies also compared cilostazol with pentoxifylline. Treatment duration ranged from six to 26 weeks. All participants had intermittent claudication secondary to PAD. Cilostazol dose ranged from 100 mg to 300 mg; pentoxifylline dose ranged from 800 mg to 1200 mg. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded by one level for all studies because publication bias was strongly suspected. Other reasons for downgrading were imprecision, inconsistency and selective reporting. Cilostazol versus placebo Participants taking cilostazol had a higher ICD compared with those taking placebo (MD 26.49 metres; 95% CI 18.93 to 34.05; 1722 participants; six studies; low-certainty evidence). We reported QoL measures descriptively due to insufficient statistical detail within the studies to combine the results; there was a possible indication in improvement of QoL in the cilostazol treatment groups (low-certainty evidence). Participants taking cilostazol had a higher ACD compared with those taking placebo (39.57 metres; 95% CI 21.80 to 57.33; 2360 participants; eight studies; very-low certainty evidence). The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, diarrhoea, abnormal stools, dizziness, pain and palpitations. Participants taking cilostazol had an increased odds of experiencing headache compared to participants taking placebo (OR 2.83; 95% CI 2.26 to 3.55; 2584 participants; eight studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Very few studies reported on other outcomes so conclusions on revascularisation, amputation, or cardiovascular events could not be made. Cilostazol versus pentoxifylline There was no difference detected between cilostazol and pentoxifylline for improving walking distance, both in terms of ICD (MD 20.0 metres, 95% CI -2.57 to 42.57; 417 participants; one study; low-certainty evidence); and ACD (MD 13.4 metres, 95% CI -43.50 to 70.36; 866 participants; two studies; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported on QoL; the study authors reported no difference in QoL between the treatment groups (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on revascularisation, amputation or cardiovascular events. Cilostazol participants had an increased odds of experiencing headache compared with participants taking pentoxifylline at 24 weeks (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.17; 982 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). Cilostazol has been shown to improve walking distance in people with intermittent claudication. However, participants taking cilostazol had higher odds of experiencing headache. There is insufficient evidence about the effectiveness of cilostazol for serious events such as amputation, revascularisation, and cardiovascular events. Despite the importance of QoL to patients, meta-analysis could not be undertaken because of differences in measures used and reporting. Very limited data indicated no difference between cilostazol and pentoxifylline for improving walking distance and data were too limited for any conclusions on other outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 12%
Student > Master 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 8 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 18%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 9 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 16 August 2021.
All research outputs
#2,621,277
of 19,144,306 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,342
of 11,934 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,775
of 336,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,144,306 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,934 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.0. 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 336,978 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 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.