↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intravenous magnesium sulfate for treating adults with acute asthma in the emergency department

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
7 blogs
twitter
117 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
324 Mendeley
Title
Intravenous magnesium sulfate for treating adults with acute asthma in the emergency department
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010909.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kew, Kayleigh M, Kirtchuk, Liza, Michell, Clare I, Kayleigh M Kew, Liza Kirtchuk, Clare I Michell, Benedict Griffiths

Abstract

Asthma is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by airways inflammation, constriction of airway smooth muscle and structural alteration of the airways that is at least partially reversible. Exacerbations of asthma can be life threatening and place a significant burden on healthcare services. Various guidelines have been published to inform management personnel in the acute setting; several include the use of a single bolus of intravenous magnesium sulfate (IV MgSO4) in cases that do not respond to first-line treatment. However, the effectiveness of this approach remains unclear, particularly in less severe cases. To assess the safety and efficacy of IV MgSO4 in adults treated for acute asthma in the emergency department. We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR) up to 2 May 2014. We also searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted trial authors to ask for additional information. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults treated in the emergency department (ED) for exacerbations of asthma if they compared any dose of IV MgSO4 with placebo. All review authors screened titles and abstracts for inclusion, and at least two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, risk of bias and numerical data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and we contacted trial investigators to obtain missing information.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios using study participants as the unit of analysis, and we analysed continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences using fixed-effect models. We rated all outcomes using GRADE and presented results in Summary of findings table 1.We carried out subgroup analyses on the primary outcome for baseline severity of exacerbations and whether or not ipratropium bromide was given as a co-medication. Unpublished data and studies at high risk of bias for blinding were removed from the main analysis in sensitivity analyses. Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, randomly assigning 2313 people with acute asthma to the comparisons of interest in this review.Most studies were double-blinded trials comparing a single infusion of 1.2 g or 2 g IV MgSO4 over 15 to 30 minutes versus a matching placebo. Eleven were conducted at a single centre, and three were multi-centre trials. Participants in almost all of the studies had already been given at least oxygen, nebulised short-acting beta2-agonists and IV corticosteroids in the ED; in some studies, investigators also administered ipratropium bromide. Ten studies included only adults, and four included both adults and children; these were included because the mean age of participants was over 18 years.Intravenous MgSO4 reduced hospital admissions compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.92; I(2) = 28%, P value 0.18; n = 972; high-quality evidence). In absolute terms, this odds ratio translates into a reduction of seven hospital admissions for every 100 adults treated with IV MgSO4 (95% CI two to 13 fewer). The test for subgroup differences revealed no statistical heterogeneity between the three severity subgroups (I(2) = 0%, P value 0.73) or between the four studies that administered nebulised ipratropium bromide as a co-medication and those that did not (I(2) = 0%, P value 0.82). Sensitivity analyses in which unpublished data and studies at high risk for blinding were removed from the primary analysis did not change conclusions.Within the secondary outcomes, high- and moderate-quality evidence across three spirometric indices suggests some improvement in lung function with IV MgSO4. No difference was found between IV MgSO4and placebo for most of the non-spirometric secondary outcomes, all of which were rated as low or moderate quality (intensive care admissions, ED treatment duration, length of hospital stay, readmission, respiration rate, systolic blood pressure).Adverse events were inconsistently reported and were not meta-analysed. The most commonly cited adverse events in the IV MgSO4 groups were flushing, fatigue, nausea and headache and hypotension (low blood pressure). This review provides evidence that a single infusion of 1.2 g or 2 g IV MgSO4 over 15 to 30 minutes reduces hospital admissions and improves lung function in adults with acute asthma who have not responded sufficiently to oxygen, nebulised short-acting beta2-agonists and IV corticosteroids. Differences in the ways the trials were conducted made it difficult for the review authors to assess whether severity of the exacerbation or additional co-medications altered the treatment effect of IV MgSO4. Limited evidence was found for other measures of benefit and safety.Studies conducted in these populations should clearly define baseline severity parameters and systematically record adverse events. Studies recruiting participants with exacerbations of varying severity should consider subgrouping results on the basis of accepted severity classifications.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 117 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 324 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 320 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 50 15%
Student > Master 44 14%
Researcher 36 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 7%
Other 20 6%
Other 55 17%
Unknown 96 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 125 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 14%
Psychology 9 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 2%
Social Sciences 8 2%
Other 26 8%
Unknown 103 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 121. 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 13 September 2022.
All research outputs
#272,042
of 22,062,456 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#474
of 12,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,491
of 205,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,062,456 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,174 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 205,876 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.