↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Thrombopoietin receptor agonists for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia in patients with solid tumours

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
Title
Thrombopoietin receptor agonists for prevention and treatment of chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia in patients with solid tumours
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012035.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xia Zhang, Yunhai Chuai, Wei Nie, Aiming Wang, Guanghai Dai

Abstract

Chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (CIT) is defined as a peripheral platelet count less than 100×109/L, with or without bleeding in cancer patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. CIT is a significant medical problem during chemotherapy, and it carries the risk of sub-optimal overall survival and bleeding. Alternative interventions to platelet transfusion are limited. Different stages of preclinical and clinical studies have examined the thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs) for CIT in patients with solid tumours. To assess the effects of TPO-RAs to prevent and treat CIT in patients with solid tumours:(1) to prevent CIT in patients without thrombocytopenia before chemotherapy, (2) to prevent recurrence of CIT, and (3) to treat CIT in patients with thrombocytopenia during chemotherapy. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, to 28 September 2017), MEDLINE (from 1950 to 28 September 2017), as well as online registers of ongoing trials (Clinical Trials, Chinese Clinical Trial Register, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, WHO ICTRP Search Portal, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, GlaxoSmithKline Clinical Study Register, and Amgen Clinical Trials) and conference proceedings (American Society of Hematology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, European Hematology Association, European Society of Medical Oncology, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, from 2002 up to September 2017) for studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TPO-RAs alone, or in combination with other drugs, to placebo, no treatment, other drugs, or another TPO-RAs for CIT in patients with solid tumours. Two review authors independently screened the results of the search strategies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and analysed data according to standard methodological methods expected by Cochrane. We identified six trials eligible for inclusion, of which two are ongoing, and one awaiting classification study. The three included trials were conducted at many different sites in Europe, America, and Asia. All of the three studies recruited adult and elder participants (no children were included) with solid tumours, and compared TPO-RAs with placebo. No studies compared TPO-RAs alone, or in combination with other drugs, to no treatment, or other drugs, or another TPO-RAs.We judged the overall risk of bias as high as we found a high risk for detection bias. We assessed the risk of bias arising from inadequate blinding of outcome assessors as high for number and severity of bleeding episodes (one of the primary outcomes).To prevent CIT: We included two trials (206 participants) comparing TPO-RAs (eltrombopag, multiple-dose oral administration with chemotherapy) with placebo. The use of TPO-RAs may make little or no difference to the all-cause mortality at 33 weeks of follow-up (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.45; one trial, 26 participants; low quality of evidence). There is not enough evidence to determine whether TPO-RAs reduce the number of patients with at least one bleeding episode of any severity (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.78; two trials, 206 participants; very low quality of evidence). There is not enough evidence to determine whether TPO-RAs reduce the number of patients with at least one severe/life-threatening bleeding episode (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.06; two trials, 206 participants; very low quality of evidence). No studies were found that looked at overall survival (one of the primary outcomes), the number of treatment cycles with at least one bleeding episode, the number of days on which bleeding occurred, the amount of bleeding, or quality of life.To prevent recurrence of CIT: We included one trial (62 participants) comparing TPO-RAs (romiplostim, single-dose subcutaneous administration with chemotherapy) with placebo. There is not enough evidence to determine whether TPO-RAs reduce the number of patients with at least one bleeding episode of any severity (RR 2.80, 95% CI 0.17 to 47.53; one trial, 62 participants; very low quality of evidence). There is not enough evidence to determine whether TPO-RAs reduce the number of patients with at least one severe/life-threatening bleeding episode (no severe/life-threatening bleeding episodes; one trial, 62 participants; very low quality of evidence). No studies were found that looked at overall survival (one of the primary outcomes), the number of treatment cycles with at least one bleeding episode, the number of days on which bleeding occurred, the amount of bleeding, or quality of life. We found one ongoing study (expected recruitment 74 participants), it is planned to give TPO-RAs (romiplostim, subcutaneous administration with chemotherapy) to participants, but to date this trial has not reported any outcomes.To treat CIT: We found one ongoing study (expected recruitment 83 participants), which is planned to give TPO-RAs (eltrombopag, seven days orally) to participants when their platelet counts are less than 75×109/L during chemotherapy. This trial was originally planned to complete in March 2017, however, the completion date has passed and no results are reported.The one awaiting classification study included patients without thrombocytopenia before chemotherapy (to prevent CIT), patients with thrombocytopenia during chemotherapy (to prevent recurrence of CIT), and other patients during chemotherapy (uncertain whether CIT had happened). There was no evidence for a difference in the number of patients with at least one bleeding episode of any severity (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.02; one trial, 75 participants). There was no evidence for a difference in the number of patients with at least one severe/life-threatening bleeding episode (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.03 to 6.77; one trial, 75 participants). This study did not address overall survival or quality of life. No certain conclusions can be drawn due to the lack of strong evidence in the review. The available weak evidence did not support the use of TPO-RAs for preventing CIT or preventing recurrence of CIT in patients with solid tumours. There was no evidence to support the use of TPO-RAs for treating CIT in patients with solid tumours.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 20%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 10%
Other 11 9%
Researcher 10 8%
Other 22 19%
Unknown 25 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 28 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 January 2018.
All research outputs
#2,980,883
of 18,550,035 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,585
of 11,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,091
of 425,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#133
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,550,035 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,834 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 425,624 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.