↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Embolisation for pulmonary arteriovenous malformation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
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 (90th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
29 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
Title
Embolisation for pulmonary arteriovenous malformation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008017.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlie C‐T Hsu, Gigi NC Kwan, Hannah Evans‐Barns, Mieke L van Driel

Abstract

Pulmonary arteriovenous malformations are abnormal direct connections between the pulmonary artery and pulmonary vein which result in a right-to-left shunt. They are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality mainly from the effects of paradoxical emboli. Potential complications include stroke, cerebral abscess, pulmonary haemorrhage and hypoxaemia. Embolisation is an endovascular intervention based on the occlusion of the feeding arteries the pulmonary arteriovenous malformations thus eliminating the abnormal right-to-left-shunting. This is an update of a previously published review. To determine the efficacy and safety of embolisation in patients with pulmonary arteriovenous malformations including a comparison with surgical resection and different embolisation devices. We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Trials Register; date of last search: 10 April 2017.We also searched the following databases: the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; ClinicalTrials.gov; International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (last searched 27 August 2017). to be updatedWe checked cross-references and searched references from review articles. Trials in which individuals with pulmonary arteriovenous malformations were randomly allocated to embolisation compared to no treatment, surgical resection or embolisation using a different embolisation device. Studies identified for potential inclusion were independently assessed for eligibility by two authors, with excluded studies further checked by a third author. No trials were identified for inclusion in the review and hence no analysis was performed. There were no randomised controlled trials included in the review; one ongoing trial has been identified which may be eligible for inclusion in the future. There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials for embolisation of pulmonary arteriovenous malformations. However, randomised controlled trials are not always feasible on ethical grounds. Accumulated data from observational studies suggest that embolisation is a safe procedure which reduces morbidity and mortality. A standardised approach to reporting with long-term follow-up through registry studies can help to strengthen the evidence for embolisation in the absence of randomised controlled trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 167 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 17%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Researcher 13 8%
Other 11 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 5%
Other 29 17%
Unknown 64 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 11%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Neuroscience 4 2%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 71 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 04 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,880,435
of 25,461,852 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,037
of 12,090 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,221
of 450,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#88
of 167 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,461,852 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,090 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 450,940 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 167 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.