↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Magnesium for treating sickle cell disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 Mendeley
Title
Magnesium for treating sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011358.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nan Nitra Than, Htoo Htoo Kyaw Soe, Senthil K Palaniappan, Adinegara BL Abas, Lucia De Franceschi

Abstract

Sickle cell disease is an autosomal recessive inherited haemoglobinopathy which causes painful vaso-occlusive crises due to sickle red blood cell dehydration. Vaso-occlusive crises are common painful events responsible for a variety of clinical complications; overall mortality is increased and life expectancy decreased compared to the general population. Experimental studies suggest that intravenous magnesium has proven to be well-tolerated in individuals hospitalised for the immediate relief of acute (sudden onset) painful crisis and has the potential to decrease the length of hospital stay. Some in vitro studies and open studies of long-term oral magnesium showed promising effect on pain relief but failed to show its efficacy. The studies show that oral magnesium therapy may prevent sickle red blood cell dehydration and prevent recurrent painful episodes. There is a need to access evidence for the impact of oral and intravenous magnesium effect on frequency of pain, length of hospital stay and quality of life. To evaluate the effects of short-term intravenous magnesium on the length of hospital stay and quality of life in children and adults with sickle cell disease. To determine the effects of long-term oral magnesium therapy on the frequency of painful crises and the quality of life in children and adults with sickle cell disease. We searched the Cochrane Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books.Date of last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 01 December 2016.Date of last search of other resources (clinical trials registries): 29 March 2017. We searched for published and unpublished randomized controlled studies of oral or intravenous magnesium compared to placebo or no magnesium. Authors independently assessed the study quality and extracted the data using standard Cochrane methodologies. We included five randomized placebo-controlled studies with a total of 386 participants (aged three to 53 years). Two shorter parallel studies (n = 306) compared intravenous magnesium sulphate to placebo (normal saline) for admission to hospital due to a vaso-occlusive crisis, for which we were able to analyse data. The quality of evidence was moderate for studies presenting this comparison mainly due to limitations due to risk of bias and imprecision. Two of the three longer-term studies comparing oral magnesium pidolate to placebo had a cross-over design. The third was a parallel factorial study which compared hydroxyurea and oral magnesium to each other and to placebo over a longer period of time; we only present the comparison of oral magnesium to placebo from this study. The quality of evidence was very low with uncertainty of the estimation.The eight-hourly dose levels in the two studies of intravenous magnesium were different; one used 100 mg/kg while the second used 40 mg/kg. Only one of these studies (n = 104) reported the mean daily pain score while hospitalised (a non-significant difference between groups, moderate quality evidence). The second study (n = 202) reported a number of child- and parent-reported quality of life scores. None of the scores showed any difference between treatment groups (low quality evidence). Data from one study (n = 106) showed no difference in length of stay in hospital between groups (low quality evidence). Both studies reported on adverse events, but not defined by severity as we had planned. One study showed significantly more participants receiving intravenous magnesium experienced warmth at infusion site compared to placebo; there were no differences between groups for other adverse events (low quality evidence).Three studies (n = 80) compared oral magnesium pidolate to placebo. None of them reported data which we were able to analyse. One study (n = 24) reported on the number of painful days and stated there was no difference between two groups (low quality evidence). None of the studies reported on quality of life or length of hospital stay. Two studies (n = 68) reported there were no differences in levels of magnesium in either plasma or red blood cells (moderate quality evidence). Two studies (n = 56) reported adverse events. One reported episodes of mild diarrhoea and headache, all of which resolved without stopping treatment. The second study reported adverse events as gastrointestinal disorders, headache or migraine, upper respiratory infections and rash; which were all evenly distributed across treatment groups (moderate quality evidence). Moderate to low quality evidence showed neither intravenous magnesium and oral magnesium therapy has an effect on reducing painful crisis, length of hospital stay and changing quality of life in treating sickle cell disease. Therefore, no definitive conclusions can be made regarding its clinical benefit. Further randomized controlled studies, perhaps multicentre, are necessary to establish whether intravenous and oral magnesium therapies have any effect on improving the health of people with sickle cell disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Algeria 1 <1%
Unknown 115 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 16%
Student > Master 17 15%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 26 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 16%
Psychology 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 7 6%
Unknown 33 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 June 2019.
All research outputs
#3,967,651
of 15,289,603 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,550
of 11,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,540
of 266,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#169
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,289,603 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 266,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.