↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Recombinant Factor VIIa concentrate versus plasma derived concentrates for the treatment of acute bleeding episodes in people with haemophilia and inhibitors

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Recombinant Factor VIIa concentrate versus plasma derived concentrates for the treatment of acute bleeding episodes in people with haemophilia and inhibitors
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004449.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iorio A, Matino D, D'Amico R, Makris M, Iorio, Alfonso, Matino, Davide, D'Amico, Roberto, Makris, Michael, Iorio A; Matino D; D'Amico R; Makris M

Abstract

In people with haemophilia, therapeutic clotting agents might be recognised as a foreign protein and induce anti-FVIII antibodies, known as 'inhibitors'. Drugs insensitive to such antibodies, either recombinant or plasma-derived, are called factor VIII "by-passing" agents and used for treatment of bleeding in people with inhibitors. To determine the clinical effectiveness of recombinant FVIIa concentrate in comparison to plasma-derived concentrates for the treatment of acute bleeding episodes in people with haemophilia and inhibitors. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Coagulopathies Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Trials Register: 07 July 2010. Randomised (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing recombinant FVIIa concentrate (rFVIIa) to human plasma-derived concentrates (high-dose human or recombinant FVIII or FIX concentrate; prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs); activated prothrombin complex concentrate (aPCC)) in persons with haemophilia. Comparisons with animal derived products were excluded. Two authors independently assessed trials (eligibility and risk of bias) and extracted data. No meta-analysis was performed due to unavailability of outcomes and comparisons common to the included studies. A total of ten trials were identified, two of which (total of 69 participants) were eligible for analysis. Both trials showed methodological flaws and did not show superiority of one treatment over the other. Both the treatments showed that (rFVIIa and aPCC appeared to have a similar haemostatic effect in both studies, without increasing thromboembolic risk. Although the main conclusion should be the need for further randomised controlled trials, we conclude that both rFVIIa and aPCC can be used to treat bleeding in haemophiliacs with inhibitors.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ecuador 2 7%
India 1 3%
United Kingdom 1 3%
Canada 1 3%
Unknown 25 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 37%
Other 3 10%
Professor 2 7%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 7 23%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 3 10%

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 17 April 2013.
All research outputs
#2,804,368
of 12,204,749 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,301
of 8,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,798
of 267,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#61
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,204,749 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.6. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 267,155 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 114 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.