↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Plasma transfusions prior to insertion of central lines for people with abnormal coagulation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

2 tweeters
1 Facebook page


9 Dimensions

Readers on

127 Mendeley
Plasma transfusions prior to insertion of central lines for people with abnormal coagulation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011756.pub2
Pubmed ID

David P Hall, Lise J Estcourt, Carolyn Doree, Sally Hopewell, Marialena Trivella, Timothy S Walsh


The insertion of central venous catheters (CVCs) may be associated with peri- and post-procedural bleeding. People who require a central line often have disorders of coagulation as a result of their underlying illness, co-morbidities or the effects of treatment. Clinical practice in some institutions is to mitigate the risk of bleeding in these patients by prophylactically transfusing fresh frozen plasma (FFP) in order to correct clotting factor deficiencies prior to central line insertion. However, FFP transfusion is not without risk, and it remains unclear whether this intervention is associated with reduced rates of bleeding or other clinically-meaningful outcomes. To assess the effect of different prophylactic plasma transfusion regimens prior to central line insertion in people with abnormal coagulation. We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 3), PubMed (e-publications only), Ovid MEDLINE (from 1946), Ovid Embase (from 1974), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950) and ongoing trial databases to 1 March 2016. We included RCTs involving transfusions of plasma to prevent bleeding in people of any age with abnormal coagulation requiring insertion of a central venous catheter, published in English. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We identified four trials eligible for inclusion, of which three are ongoing. We did not exclude any studies because they were not published in English.The included study randomised 81 adults in intensive care whose INR (International Normalised Ratio) was greater than or equal to 1.5 to no FFP or to a single dose of 12 mL/kg FFP prior to undergoing central venous catheterisation (58 participants) or other invasive procedure (23 participants). It is the subgroup of 58 adults undergoing CVC insertion that were included in this review, the study authors provided unpublished data for this review's outcomes.The quality of the evidence was low or very low across different outcomes according to the GRADE methodology. The included study was at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel and imbalance in the number of participants who had liver disease between study arms.There was insufficient evidence to determine a difference in major procedure-related bleeding within 24 hours (one RCT; 58 participants; no events in either study arm, very low-quality evidence). We are very uncertain whether FFP reduces minor procedure-related bleeding within 24 hours of the study (one RCT; 58 participants, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.70, very low-quality evidence).No studies were found that looked at: all-cause mortality; the proportion of participants receiving plasma or red cell transfusions; serious adverse reactions (transfusion or line-related complications); number of days in hospital; change in INR; or quality of life.The three ongoing studies are still recruiting participants (expected recruitment: up to 355 participants in total). and are due to be completed by February 2018. There is only very limited evidence from one RCT to inform the decision whether or not to administer prophylactic plasma prior to central venous catheterisation for people with abnormal coagulation. It is not possible from the current RCT evidence to recommend whether or not prophylactic plasma transfusion is beneficial or harmful in this situation. The three ongoing RCTs will not be able to answer this review's questions, because they are small studies and do not address all of the comparisons included in this review (355 participants in total). To detect an increase in the proportion of participants who had major bleeding from 1 in 100 to 2 in 100 would require a study containing at least 4634 participants (80% power, 5% significance).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 127 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 16%
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 28 22%
Unknown 27 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 10%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 32 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 October 2016.
All research outputs
of 15,882,331 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 270,261 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,882,331 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,314 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.6. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 270,261 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.