↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Regular long-term red blood cell transfusions for managing chronic chest complications in sickle cell disease

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
103 Mendeley
Title
Regular long-term red blood cell transfusions for managing chronic chest complications in sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008360.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lise J Estcourt, Patricia M Fortin, Sally Hopewell, Marialena Trivella, Ian R Hambleton, Gavin Cho

Abstract

Sickle cell disease is a genetic haemoglobin disorder, which can cause severe pain, significant end-organ damage, pulmonary complications, and premature death. Sickle cell disease is one of the most common severe monogenic disorders in the world, due to the inheritance of two abnormal haemoglobin (beta globin) genes. The two most common chronic chest complications due to sickle cell disease are pulmonary hypertension and chronic sickle lung disease. These complications can lead to morbidity (such as reduced exercise tolerance) and increased mortality.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2011 and updated in 2014. We wanted to determine whether trials involving people with sickle cell disease that compare regular long-term blood transfusion regimens with standard care, hydroxycarbamide (hydroxyurea) any other drug treatment show differences in the following: mortality associated with chronic chest complications; severity of established chronic chest complications; development and progression of chronic chest complications; serious adverse events. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register. Date of the last search: 25 April 2016.We also searched for randomised controlled trials in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 26 January 2016), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), CINAHL (from 1937), the Transfusion Evidence Library (from 1950), and ongoing trial databases to 26 January 2016. We included randomised controlled trials of people of any age with one of four common sickle cell disease genotypes, i.e. Hb SS, Sß(0), SC, or Sß(+) that compared regular red blood cell transfusion regimens (either simple or exchange transfusions) to hydroxycarbamide, any other drug treatment, or to standard care that were aimed at reducing the development or progression of chronic chest complications (chronic sickle lung and pulmonary hypertension). We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. No studies matching the selection criteria were found. There is a need for randomised controlled trials looking at the role of long-term transfusion therapy in pulmonary hypertension and chronic sickle lung disease. Due to the chronic nature of the conditions, such trials should aim to use a combination of objective and subjective measures to assess participants repeatedly before and after the intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 103 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 101 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 21%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 23 22%
Unknown 21 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 25 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 February 2018.
All research outputs
#11,706,329
of 14,762,550 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,108
of 11,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,383
of 264,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#169
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,762,550 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,049 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 264,104 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.