↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Interventions for treating post‐extraction bleeding

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
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 (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
38 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
299 Mendeley
Title
Interventions for treating post‐extraction bleeding
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011930.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sumanth Kumbargere Nagraj, Eachempati Prashanti, Himanshi Aggarwal, Ashok Lingappa, Murugan S Muthu, Salian Kiran Kumar Krishanappa, Haszelini Hassan

Abstract

Post-extraction bleeding (PEB) is a recognised, frequently encountered complication in dental practice, which is defined as bleeding that continues beyond 8 to 12 hours after dental extraction. The incidence of post-extraction bleeding varies from 0% to 26%. If post-extraction bleeding is not managed, complications can range from soft tissue haematomas to severe blood loss. Local causes of bleeding include soft tissue and bone bleeding. Systemic causes include platelet problems, coagulation disorders or excessive fibrinolysis, and inherited or acquired problems (medication induced). There is a wide array of techniques suggested for the treatment of post-extraction bleeding, which include interventions aimed at both local and systemic causes. This is an update of a review published in June 2016. To assess the effects of interventions for treating different types of post-extraction bleeding. Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 24 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 24 January 2018), Embase Ovid (1 May 2015 to 24 January 2018) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 24 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. We searched the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any intervention for treating PEB, with male or female participants of any age, regardless of type of teeth (anterior or posterior, mandibular or maxillary). Trials could compare one type of intervention with another, with placebo, or with no treatment. Three pairs of review authors independently screened search records. We obtained full papers for potentially relevant trials. If data had been extracted, we would have followed the methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for the statistical analysis. We did not find any randomised controlled trial suitable for inclusion in this review. We were unable to identify any reports of randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of different interventions for the treatment of post-extraction bleeding. In view of the lack of reliable evidence on this topic, clinicians must use their clinical experience to determine the most appropriate means of treating this condition, depending on patient-related factors. There is a need for well designed and appropriately conducted clinical trials on this topic, which conform to the CONSORT statement (www.consort-statement.org/).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users 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 299 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 299 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 38 13%
Student > Master 28 9%
Other 18 6%
Researcher 15 5%
Student > Postgraduate 14 5%
Other 36 12%
Unknown 150 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 94 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 5%
Psychology 6 2%
Social Sciences 4 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 1%
Other 18 6%
Unknown 160 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. 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 05 October 2022.
All research outputs
#893,432
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,738
of 13,150 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,112
of 347,543 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 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 13,150 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 347,543 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.