↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Vitamin K for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver diseases

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 Mendeley
Title
Vitamin K for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver diseases
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004792.pub5
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. Several treatments are used for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases. One of them is vitamin K administration, but it is not known whether it benefits or harms people with acute or chronic liver disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. This is an update of this Cochrane review. To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin K for people with acute or chronic liver disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register (February 2015), the 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), and LILACS (1982 to 25 February 2015). We sought additional randomised trials from two registries of clinical trials: the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Search Portal and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials. We looked through the reference lists of the retrieved publications and review articles. Randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. We considered observational studies for assessment of harms only. \We aimed to summarise data from randomised clinical trials using Standard Cochrane methodology and assess them according to the GRADE approach. We found no randomised trials on vitamin K for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases assessing benefits and harms of the intervention. We identified no quasi-randomised studies, historically controlled studies, or observational studies assessing harms. This updated review found no randomised clinical trials of vitamin K for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases. The benefits and harms of vitamin K need to be tested in randomised clinical trials. Until randomised clinical trials are conducted to assess the trade-off between benefits and harms, we cannot recommend or refute the use of vitamin K for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 105 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Other 8 7%
Researcher 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 25 23%
Unknown 27 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 37%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Unspecified 6 6%
Psychology 5 5%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 30 28%
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 16 January 2017.
All research outputs
#7,336,317
of 25,381,864 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,890
of 12,999 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,843
of 273,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#193
of 274 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,381,864 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,999 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.8. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 273,675 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 274 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.