↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Plasma exchange for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

4 tweeters
1 Facebook page


71 Dimensions

Readers on

148 Mendeley
Plasma exchange for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003906.pub4
Pubmed ID

Man Mohan Mehndiratta, Richard AC Hughes, Jane Pritchard


Chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) is an uncommon progressive or relapsing paralysing disease caused by inflammation of the peripheral nerves. If the hypothesis that it is due to autoimmunity is correct, removal of autoantibodies in the blood by plasma exchange should be beneficial. To assess the effects of plasma exchange for treating CIDP. On 30 June 2015, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, and LILACS. We also scrutinised the bibliographies of the trials, contacted the trial authors and other disease experts, and searched trials registries for ongoing studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in participants of any age comparing plasma exchange with sham treatment or no treatment. Two review authors independently selected the trials, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias. Where possible the review authors combined data according to the methods of the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Review Group. Primary outcome measure: one cross-over trial including 18 participants showed after four weeks, 2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.8 to 3.0) points more improvement on an 11-point disability scale with plasma exchange (10 exchanges over four weeks) than with sham exchange. Rapid deterioration after plasma exchange occurred in eight of 12 who had improved. when we combined the results of this cross-over trial and a trial with 29 participants treated in a parallel-group design, there were 31 points (95% CI 16 to 45) more improvement on an impairment scale (maximum score 280) after plasma exchange (six exchanges over three weeks) than after sham exchange. There were significant improvements in both trials in an electrophysiological measure, the proximally evoked compound muscle action potential, after three or four weeks. Nonrandomised evidence indicates that plasma exchange induces adverse events in 3% to 17% of procedures. These events are sometimes serious. Both trials had a low risk of bias. A trial that showed no significant difference in the benefit between plasma exchange and intravenous immunoglobulin is included in the Cochrane review of intravenous immunoglobulin for this condition. Moderate- to high-quality evidence from two small trials shows that plasma exchange provides significant short-term improvement in disability, clinical impairment, and motor nerve conduction velocity in CIDP but rapid deterioration may occur afterwards. Adverse events related to difficulty with venous access, use of citrate, and haemodynamic changes are not uncommon. We need more research to identify agents that will prolong the beneficial action of plasma exchange.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 147 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Master 13 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 33 22%
Unknown 42 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 5%
Neuroscience 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 19 13%
Unknown 43 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 May 2021.
All research outputs
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 268,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 288 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.1. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 268,987 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 288 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.