↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antifibrinolytic amino acids for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Antifibrinolytic amino acids for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006007.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arturo J Martí‐Carvajal, Ivan Solà

Abstract

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the most frequent causes of morbidity and mortality in the course of liver cirrhosis. People with liver disease frequently have haemostatic abnormalities such as hyperfibrinolysis. Therefore, antifibrinolytic amino acids have been proposed to be used as supplementary interventions alongside any of the primary treatments for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases. This is an update of this Cochrane review. To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antifibrinolytic amino acids for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver disease. We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register (February 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2 of 12, 2015), MEDLINE (Ovid SP) (1946 to February 2015), EMBASE (Ovid SP) (1974 to February 2015), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to February 2015), LILACS (1982 to February 2015), World Health Organization Clinical Trials Search Portal (accessed 26 February 2015), and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (accessed 26 February 2015). We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications. Randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. Observational studies for assessment of harms. We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials using standard Cochrane methodologies and assessed according to the GRADE approach. We found no randomised clinical trials assessing antifibrinolytic amino acids for treating upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver disease. We did not identify quasi-randomised, historically controlled, or observational studies in which we could assess harms. This updated Cochrane review identified no randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits and harms of antifibrinolytic amino acids for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver disease. The benefits and harms of antifibrinolytic amino acids need to be tested in randomised clinical trials. Unless randomised clinical trials are conducted to assess the trade-off between benefits and harms, we cannot recommend or refute antifibrinolytic amino acids for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 22%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 19 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 21 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 June 2015.
All research outputs
#16,106,935
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,216
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,982
of 280,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#215
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 280,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.