↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Parenteral fluid regimens for improving functional outcome in people with acute stroke

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
121 Mendeley
Title
Parenteral fluid regimens for improving functional outcome in people with acute stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011138.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Akila Visvanathan, Martin Dennis, William Whiteley

Abstract

Parenteral fluids are commonly used in people with acute stroke with poor oral fluid intake. However, the balance between benefit and harm for different fluid regimens is unclear. To assess whether different parenteral fluid regimens lead to differences in death, or death or dependence, after stroke based on fluid type, fluid volume, duration of fluid administration, and mode of delivery. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (2008 to May 2015), EMBASE (2008 to May 2015), and CINAHL (1982 to May 2015). We also searched ongoing trials registers (May 2015) and reference lists, performed cited reference searches, and contacted authors. Randomised trials of parenteral fluid regimens in adults with ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke within seven days of stroke onset that reported death or dependence. One review author screened titles and abstracts. We obtained the full-text articles of relevant studies, and two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We used Cochrane's tool for bias assessment. We included 12 studies (2351 participants: range 27 to 841).Characteristics: The 12 included studies compared hypertonic (colloids) with isotonic fluids (crystalloids); of these, five studies (1420 participants) also compared 0.9% saline with another fluid. No data were available to make other comparisons. Delay from stroke to recruitment varied from less than 24 hours to 72 hours. Duration of fluid delivery was between two hours and 10 days.Bias assessment: Investigators and participants in eight of the 12 included studies were blind to treatment allocation, seven of the 12 included studies gave details of randomisation, and eight of the 12 included studies reported all outcomes measured. There were no relevant completed trials that addressed the effect of volume, duration, or mode of fluid delivery on death or dependence in people with stroke.The odds of death or dependence were similar in participants allocated to colloids or crystalloid fluid regimens (odds ratio (OR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.21, five studies, I² = 58%, low-quality evidence), and between 0.9% saline or other fluid regimens (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.32, three studies, I² = 71%, low-quality evidence). There was substantial heterogeneity in these estimates.The odds of death were similar between colloids and crystalloids (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.27, 12 studies, I² = 24%, moderate-quality evidence), and 0.9% saline and other fluids (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.12, five studies, I² = 53%, low-quality evidence). The odds of pulmonary oedema were higher in participants allocated to colloids (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.28 to 4.29, I² = 0%). Although the studies observed a higher risk of cerebral oedema (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.74) and pneumonia (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.01) with crystalloids, we could not exclude clinically important benefits or harms. We found no evidence that colloids were associated with lower odds of death or dependence in the medium term after stroke compared with crystalloids, though colloids were associated with greater odds of pulmonary oedema. We found no evidence to guide the best volume, duration, or mode of parenteral fluid delivery for people with acute stroke.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Student > Bachelor 16 13%
Researcher 14 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 25 21%
Unknown 26 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 19%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 32 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,578,351
of 14,674,316 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,241
of 11,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,423
of 237,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#207
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,674,316 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,038 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 237,664 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.