↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Effectiveness of tranexamic acid in reducing blood loss during cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

6 tweeters
3 Facebook pages


20 Dimensions

Readers on

157 Mendeley
Effectiveness of tranexamic acid in reducing blood loss during cytoreductive surgery for advanced ovarian cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011732.pub2
Pubmed ID

Chumnan Kietpeerakool, Amornrat Supoken, Malinee Laopaiboon, Pisake Lumbiganon


Ovarian cancer is the third most common gynaecological cancer worldwide, with an age-standardised incidence rate of 6.1 per 10,000 women. Standard therapy for advanced epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) includes a combination of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. Cytoreductive surgery aims to remove as much of the visible tumour as possible. As extensive intraperitoneal metastases are typical of advanced EOC, cytoreductive surgery is usually an extensive procedure with the risk of excessive bleeding. Tranexamic acid given perioperatively is effective in reducing blood loss and allogeneic blood transfusion requirements in a variety of surgical settings. Therefore, tranexamic acid seems to be a promising agent for minimising blood loss and the need for blood transfusion among women with advanced EOC undergoing cytoreductive surgery. To assess the effects of tranexamic acid for reducing blood loss associated with cytoreductive surgery in women with advanced EOC (stage III to IV). We searched the Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancers Trial Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 5, 2015), MEDLINE, EMBASE and conference proceedings to May 2015. We also checked registers of clinical trials, citation lists of included studies, key textbooks and previous systematic reviews for potentially relevant studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tranexamic acid given during surgery versus placebo or no treatment, in adult women diagnosed with advanced EOC. Two review authors (CK, AS) independently selected potentially relevant trials, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, compared results and resolved disagreements by discussion. We found only one study that met our inclusion criteria. This was a randomised double blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a single dose of intravenous tranexamic acid (15 mg/kg body weight) versus placebo, given immediately before surgery for reducing blood loss and the need for red blood cell transfusion. The mean total estimated blood loss was 668.34 mL and 916.93 mL for participants assigned to tranexamic acid and placebo groups, respectively. The mean difference (MD) of total estimated blood loss between the groups did not show a clinically important effect (MD - 248.59 mL; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 550.9 to 53.79; one study, 100 participants; moderate quality evidence). The mean number of transfused units of blood components was not different between the two groups (low quality evidence). There were no noted differences in the incidence of reoperation, readmission or thromboembolic events (very low quality evidence). We considered the methodology of the included study to be at low risk of selection, detection, and reporting biases. However, we were concerned about an imbalance of some baseline characteristics between the groups, and as there was no protocol for blood transfusion, the rate of blood transfusion may vary depending on the practice of each participating hospital. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the routine use of tranexamic acid for reducing blood loss in women undergoing cytoreductive surgery for advanced EOC, as only limited data are available from a single, low quality RCT at low overall risk of bias.

Twitter Demographics

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 157 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 16%
Student > Master 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Other 28 18%
Unknown 52 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 55 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 October 2016.
All research outputs
of 23,368,819 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 398,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,368,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,645 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 398,442 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 73% 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 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.