↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Buflomedil for acute ischaemic stroke

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
108 Mendeley
Title
Buflomedil for acute ischaemic stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009570.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simiao Wu, Quantao Zeng, Ming Liu, Jie Yang, Sha He, Sen Lin, Bo Wu

Abstract

Few strategies are effective for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. Buflomedil is a vasoactive agent that has been used for peripheral arterial diseases. Research studies have suggested that buflomedil may have beneficial effects in people with cerebral vascular diseases, including acute ischaemic stroke, however it has not been approved for treating stroke in clinical practice. To assess the efficacy and safety of buflomedil for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to February 2014), EMBASE (1980 to February 2014), ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database (July 2014), Web of Science (including Conference Proceedings Citation Index Science (CPCI-S)) (July 2014), and four Chinese databases (February 2014). We also searched five ongoing trials registers and reference lists of the included trials. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of buflomedil in people with acute ischaemic stroke. The primary outcome of this review was long-term death or disability/dependence. Other outcomes included short-term death, short-term disability, neurological deficits, and adverse events. We included trials comparing buflomedil versus a placebo control, trials comparing buflomedil plus usual medical care versus usual medical care alone, or those comparing buflomedil plus another intervention versus that intervention alone. We excluded trials comparing buflomedil alone with other potentially active intervention(s). Two review authors independently scrutinised citations, selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in the included trials. We reported risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data. We performed meta-analysis, using a random-effects model, for death and improvement of neurological deficits. Data for disability/dependence and adverse events were not suitable for meta-analysis thus we reported these narratively. We performed subgroup analyses for time of recruitment since stroke, delivery route, daily dose, and treatment duration. We included 26 trials (2756 participants), all conducted in China. All participants were inpatients within the first few days after stroke onset (mean age 58 to 75 years and male proportion 45% to 80%). Most trials delivered buflomedil intravenously, with a daily dose of 200 mg for 14 days. The study quality was generally poor and many trials were poorly reported.Only one trial reported long-term death and disability, where stroke survivors in the buflomedil group had a lower risk of suffering 'death or disability' than those in the control group (200 participants, RR 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.94). All 26 trials assessed outcomes by the end of treatment (eight trials with 1056 participants reported death, one trial with 85 participants reported disability, and 26 trials with 2756 participants reported neurological deficits), but there was no robust evidence for any of these short-term outcomes. Seventeen trials (1899 participants) investigated the presence of adverse events during the treatment, of which six trials (853 participants) reported "no significant adverse event in any participants" and the other 11 trials (1046 participants) reported a total of 38 adverse events in the buflomedil group and two events in the control group. In general, for each of these outcomes the quality of evidence was low according to the GRADE principles. There is insufficient evidence on the efficacy or safety of buflomedil to support its use for the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke. Given these uncertainties, the data support the rationale for an adequately powered RCT of buflomedil in people with acute ischaemic stroke.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 108 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 19%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 19 18%
Unknown 31 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 15%
Psychology 7 6%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 35 32%

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 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#9,355,071
of 15,937,237 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,243
of 11,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,558
of 236,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#214
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,937,237 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,330 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.6. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 236,964 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.