↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Fluid replacement therapy for acute episodes of pain in people with sickle cell disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
13 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
Title
Fluid replacement therapy for acute episodes of pain in people with sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005406.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Uduak Okomo, Martin M Meremikwu

Abstract

Treating vaso-occlusive painful crises in people with sickle cell disease is complex and requires multiple interventions. Extra fluids are routinely given as adjunct treatment, regardless of the individual's state of hydration with the aim of slowing or stopping the sickling process and thereby alleviating pain. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. To determine the optimal route, quantity and type of fluid replacement for people with sickle cell disease with acute painful crises. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.We also conducted searches of Embase (November 2007), LILACS, www.ClinicalTrials.gov (05 January 2010), and the WHO ICTRP (30 June 2017).Date of most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 16 February 2017. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the administration of supplemental fluids adjunctive to analgesics by any route in people with any type of sickle cell disease during an acute painful episode, under medical supervision (inpatient, day care or community). No relevant trials have yet been identified. Sixteen trials were identified by the searches, all of which were not eligible for inclusion in the review. Treating vaso-occlusive crises is complex and requires multiple interventions. Extra fluids, generally oral or intravenous, are routinely administered during acute painful episodes to people with sickle cell disease regardless of the individual's state of hydration. Reports of their use during these acute painful episodes do not state the efficacy of any single route, type or quantity of fluid compared to another. However, there are no randomised controlled trials that have assessed the safety and efficacy of different routes, types or quantities of fluid. This systematic review identifies the need for a multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy and possible adverse effects of different routes, types and quantities of fluid administered to people with sickle cell disease during acute painful episodes.

Timeline
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 195 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 9%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Master 18 9%
Other 15 8%
Other 47 24%
Unknown 61 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 70 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 24 June 2024.
All research outputs
#747,457
of 26,180,352 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,319
of 13,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,057
of 331,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#32
of 273 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,180,352 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 331,946 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 273 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.