↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Continuous erythropoiesis receptor activator (CERA) for the anaemia of chronic kidney disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

13 tweeters


16 Dimensions

Readers on

176 Mendeley
Continuous erythropoiesis receptor activator (CERA) for the anaemia of chronic kidney disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009904.pub2
Pubmed ID

Valeria M Saglimbene, Suetonia C Palmer, Marinella Ruospo, Patrizia Natale, Jonathan C Craig, Giovanni FM Strippoli


Continuous erythropoiesis receptor activator (CERA) is a newer, longer acting ESA which might be preferred to other ESAs (epoetin or darbepoetin) based on its lower frequency of administration. Different dosing requirements and molecular characteristics of CERA compared with other ESAs may lead to different health outcomes (mortality, cardiovascular events, quality of life) in people with anaemia and chronic kidney disease (CKD). To assess benefits and harms of CERA compared with other epoetins (darbepoetin alfa and epoetin alfa or beta) or placebo/no treatment or CERA with differing strategy of administration for anaemia in individuals with CKD. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 13 June 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least three months' duration, comparing CERA with a different ESA (darbepoetin alfa or epoetin alfa or beta) or placebo or standard care or versus CERA with different strategies for administration in people with any stage of CKD. Data were extracted by two independent investigators. We summarised patient-centred outcomes (all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, red cell blood transfusion, iron therapy, cancer, hypertension, seizures, dialysis vascular access thrombosis, drug injection-related events, hyperkalaemia and health-related quality of life and haemoglobin levels) using random effects meta-analysis. Treatment estimates were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences or standardized mean difference with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. We included 27 studies involving 5410 adults with CKD. Seven studies (1273 participants) involved people not requiring dialysis, 19 studies (4209 participants) involved people treated with dialysis and one study (71 participants) evaluated treatment in recipients of a kidney transplant. Treatment was given for 24 weeks on average. No data were available for children with CKD. Studies were generally at high or unclear risk of bias from allocation concealment and blinding of outcomes. Only two studies masked participants and investigators to treatment allocation. One study compared CERA with placebo, nine studies CERA with epoetin alfa or beta, nine studies CERA with darbepoetin alfa, and two studies compared CERA with epoetin alfa or beta and darbepoetin alfa. Three studies assessed the effects of differing frequencies of CERA administration and five assessed differing CERA doses.There was low certainty evidence that CERA had little or no effects on mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.57; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.65), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 5.09, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.23; RR 5.56, 95% CI 0.99 to 31.30), hypertension (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.37; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.28), need for blood transfusion (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.46; RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.61), or additional iron therapy (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03) compared to epoetin alfa/beta or darbepoetin alfa respectively. There was insufficient evidence to compare the effect of CERA to placebo on clinical outcomes. Only one low quality study reported that CERA compared to placebo might lead to little or no difference in the risk of major cardiovascular events (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.31 to 28.18) and hypertension ((RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.52). There was low certainty evidence that different doses (higher versus lower) or frequency (twice versus once monthly) of CERA administration had little or no different effect on all-cause mortality (RR 3.95, 95% CI 0.17 to 91.61; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.66), hypertension (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.52; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.21), and blood cell transfusions (RR 4.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 19.53; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.62). No studies reported comparative treatment effects of different ESAs on health-related quality of life. There is low certainty evidence that CERA has little or no effects on patient-centred outcomes compared with placebo, epoetin alfa or beta or darbepoetin alfa for adults with CKD. The effects of CERA among children who have CKD have not studied in RCTs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 176 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 176 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 33 19%
Student > Master 32 18%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Postgraduate 14 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 33 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 41 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 August 2017.
All research outputs
of 14,258,753 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 10,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 269,046 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,258,753 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 269,046 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.