↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Intravenous magnesium sulfate for treating children with acute asthma in the emergency department

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
51 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
190 Mendeley
Title
Intravenous magnesium sulfate for treating children with acute asthma in the emergency department
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011050.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Benedict Griffiths, Kayleigh M Kew

Abstract

Acute asthma in children can be life-threatening and must be treated promptly in the emergency setting. Intravenous magnesium sulfate is recommended by various guidelines for cases of acute asthma that have not responded to first-line treatment with bronchodilators and steroids. The treatment has recently been shown to reduce the need for hospital admission for adults compared with placebo, but it is unclear whether it is equally effective for children. To assess the safety and efficacy of intravenous magnesium sulfate (IV MgSO4) in children treated for acute asthma in the emergency department (ED). We identified studies by searching the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register up to 23 February 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted study authors to ask for additional information. We included randomised controlled trials of children treated in the ED for exacerbations of asthma if they compared any dose of IV MgSO4 with placebo. Two review authors screened the results of the search and independently extracted data from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. We resolved disagreements through discussion and contacted study authors in cases of missing data and other uncertainties relating to the studies.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios and continuous data as mean differences, both using fixed-effect models. We assessed each study for risk of bias and rated the quality of evidence for each outcome with GRADE and presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table. There was insufficient evidence to conduct the planned subgroup analyses. Five studies (182 children) met the inclusion criteria, and four contributed data to at least one meta-analysis. The included studies were overall at low risk of bias, but our confidence in the evidence was generally low, mainly due to the small sample sizes. Treatment with IV MgSO4 reduced the odds of admission to hospital by 68% (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.74; children = 115; studies = 3; I(2) = 63%). This result was based on data from just three studies including 115 children. Meta-analysis for the secondary outcomes was extremely limited by paucity of data. We performed meta-analysis for the outcome 'return to the emergency department within 48 hours', which showed a very imprecise effect estimate that was not statistically significant (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.30; children = 85; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%). Side effects and adverse events were not consistently reported and meta-analysis was not possible, however few side effects or adverse events were reported. IV MgSO4 may reduce the need for hospital admission in children presenting to the ED with moderate to severe exacerbations of asthma, but the evidence is extremely limited by the number and size of studies. Few side effects of the treatment were reported, but the data were extremely limited.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 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 190 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 189 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Other 22 12%
Student > Master 17 9%
Researcher 15 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 4%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 72 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 10 5%
Unknown 79 42%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 08 June 2021.
All research outputs
#572,348
of 18,823,067 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,304
of 11,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,906
of 271,439 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#38
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,823,067 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 271,439 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.