↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
226 Mendeley
Title
Colchicine for prevention of cardiovascular events
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011047.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lars G Hemkens, Hannah Ewald, Viktoria L Gloy, Armon Arpagaus, Kelechi K Olu, Mark Nidorf, Dominik Glinz, Alain J Nordmann, Matthias Briel

Abstract

Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory drug that is used for a wide range of inflammatory diseases. Cardiovascular disease also has an inflammatory component but the effects of colchicine on cardiovascular outcomes remain unclear. Previous safety analyses were restricted to specific patient populations. To evaluate potential cardiovascular benefits and harms of a continuous long-term treatment with colchicine in any population, and specifically in people with high cardiovascular risk. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry, citations of key papers, and study references in January 2015. We also contacted investigators to gain unpublished data. Randomised controlled trials (parallel-group or cluster design or first phases of cross-over studies) comparing colchicine over at least six months versus any control in any adult population. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular mortality, stroke, heart failure, non-scheduled hospitalisations, and non-scheduled cardiovascular interventions. We conducted predefined subgroup analyses, in particular for participants with high cardiovascular risk. . We included 39 randomised parallel-group trials with 4992 participants. Colchicine had no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.09; participants = 4174; studies = 30; I² = 27%; moderate quality of evidence). There is uncertainty surrounding the effect of colchicine in reducing cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.21, I² = 9%; participants = 1132; studies = 7; moderate quality of evidence). Colchicine reduced the risk for total myocardial infarction (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.57; participants = 652; studies = 2; moderate quality of evidence). There was no effect on total adverse events (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.46; participants = 1313; studies = 11; I² = 45%; very low quality of evidence) but gastrointestinal intolerance was increased (RR 1.83, 95% CI 1.03 to 3.26; participants = 1258; studies = 11; I² = 74%; low quality of evidence). Colchicine showed no effect on heart failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.88; participants = 462; studies = 3; I² = 45%; low quality of evidence) and no effect on stroke (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.70; participants = 874; studies = 3; I² = 45%; low quality of evidence). Reporting of serious adverse events was inconsistent; no event occurred over 824 patient-years (4 trials). Effects on other outcomes were very uncertain. Summary effects of RCTs specifically focusing on participants with high cardiovascular risk were similar (4 trials; 1230 participants). There is much uncertainty surrounding the benefits and harms of colchicine treatment. Colchicine may have substantial benefits in reducing myocardial infarction in selected high-risk populations but uncertainty about the size of the effect on survival and other cardiovascular outcomes is high, especially in the general population from which most of the studies in our review were drawn. Colchicine is associated with gastrointestinal side effects based on low-quality evidence. More evidence from large-scale randomised trials is needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 226 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 224 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 20%
Researcher 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 25 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 6%
Other 40 18%
Unknown 57 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 83 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 26 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Psychology 6 3%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 72 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 23 January 2021.
All research outputs
#3,246,821
of 21,025,129 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,778
of 12,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,874
of 371,950 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#108
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,025,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,068 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
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 371,950 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.