↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Growth factors for angiogenesis in peripheral arterial disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
15 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
Title
Growth factors for angiogenesis in peripheral arterial disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011741.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vitali Gorenoi, Michael U Brehm, Armin Koch, Anja Hagen

Abstract

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with a high clinical and socioeconomic burden. Treatments to alleviate the symptoms of PAD and decrease the risks of amputation and death are a high societal priority. A number of growth factors have shown a potential to stimulate angiogenesis. Growth factors delivered directly (as recombinant proteins), or indirectly (e.g. by viral vectors or DNA plasmids encoding these factors), have emerged as a promising strategy to treat patients with PAD. To assess the effects of growth factors that promote angiogenesis for treating people with PAD of the lower extremities. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (June 2016) and CENTRAL (2016, Issue 5). We searched trial registries for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. We also checked the reference lists of relevant publications and, if necessary, tried to contact the trialists for details of the studies. We included randomised controlled trials comparing growth factors (delivered directly or indirectly) with no intervention, placebo or any other intervention not based on the growth factor's action in patients with PAD of the lower extremities. The primary outcomes were limb amputation, death and adverse events. The secondary outcomes comprised walking ability, haemodynamic measures, ulceration and rest pain. Two review authors independently selected trials and assessed the risk of bias. We used outcomes of the studies at low risk of bias for the main analysis and of all studies in the sensitivity analyses. We calculated odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We evaluated statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic and Cochrane's Q test. We conducted meta-analysis for the overall effect and for each growth factor as a subgroup analysis using OR in a fixed-effect model. We evaluated the robustness of the results in a sensitivity analysis using risk ratio (RR) and/or a random-effects model. We also assessed the quality of the evidence for each outcome. We included 20 trials in the review and used 14 studies (on approximately 1400 participants) with published results in the analyses. Six published studies compared fibroblast growth factors (FGF), four studies hepatocyte growth factors (HGF) and another four studies vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), versus placebo or no therapy. Six of these studies exclusively or mainly investigated participants with intermittent claudication and eight studies exclusively participants with critical limb ischaemia. Follow-up generally ranged from three months to one year. Two small studies provided some data at 2 years and one of them also at 10 years.The direction and size of effects for growth factors on major limb amputations (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.38; 10 studies, N = 1075) and death (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41; 12 studies, N = 1371) at up to two years are uncertain. The quality of the evidence is low due to risk of bias and imprecision (at one year, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision). However, growth factors may decrease the rate of any limb amputations (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99; 6 studies, N = 415). The quality of the evidence is low due to risk of bias and selective reporting.The direction and size of effects for growth factors on serious adverse events (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50; 13 studies, N = 1411) and on any adverse events (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.64; 4 studies, N = 709) at up to two years are also uncertain. The quality of the evidence is low due to risk of bias and imprecision (for serious adverse events at one year, moderate-quality evidence due to imprecision).Growth factors may improve haemodynamic measures (low-quality evidence), ulceration (very low-quality evidence) and rest pain (very low-quality evidence) up to one year, but they have little or no effect on walking ability (low-quality evidence). We did not identify any relevant differences in effects between growth factors (FGF, HGF and VEGF). The results of this review do not support the use of therapy with the growth factors FGF, HGF or VEGF in people with PAD of the lower extremities to prevent death or major limb amputation or to improve walking ability. However, the use of these growth factors may improve haemodynamic measures and decrease the rate of any limb amputations (probably due to preventing minor amputations) with an uncertain effect on adverse events; an improvement of ulceration and rest pain is very uncertain. New trials at low risk of bias are needed to generate evidence with more certainty.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 20%
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Researcher 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 22 15%
Unknown 34 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Psychology 5 3%
Sports and Recreations 4 3%
Other 21 15%
Unknown 38 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 25 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,158,948
of 21,262,134 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,742
of 12,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,663
of 288,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#125
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,262,134 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,103 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 288,994 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 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.