↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological treatment for Buerger's disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Pharmacological treatment for Buerger's disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011033.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel G Cacione, Cristiane R Macedo, Jose CC Baptista-Silva

Abstract

Buerger's disease (thromboangiitis obliterans) is a non-atherosclerotic, segmental inflammatory pathology that most commonly affects the small and medium sized arteries, veins, and nerves in the upper and lower extremities. The etiology is unknown, but involves hereditary susceptibility, tobacco exposure, immune and coagulation responses. In many cases, there is no possibility of revascularization to improve the condition. Pharmacological treatment is an option for patients with severe complications, such as ischaemic ulcers or rest pain. To assess the effectiveness of any pharmacological agent (intravenous or oral) compared with placebo or any other pharmacological agent in patients with Buerger's disease. The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched their Specialised Register (last searched in April 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (Issue 3, 2015). The review authors searched trial registers and the European grey literature; screened reference lists of relevant studies, and contacted study authors and major pharmaceutical companies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving pharmacological agents used in the treatment of Buerger's disease. Two review authors, independently assessed the studies, extracted data and performed data analysis. Five randomised controlled trials (total 602 participants) compared prostacyclin analogue with placebo, aspirin, or a prostaglandin analogue, and folic acid with placebo. No studies assessed other pharmacological agents such as cilostazol, clopidogrel and pentoxifylline or compared oral versus intravenous prostanoid.Compared with aspirin, intravenous prostacyclin analogue iloprost improved ulcer healing (risk ratio (RR) 2.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 6.11; 98 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence), and helped to eradicate rest pain after 28 days (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.48 to 3.52; 133 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence), although amputation rates were similar six months after treatment (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.09 to 1.15; 95 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence). When comparing prostacyclin (iloprost and clinprost) with prostaglandin (alprostadil) analogues, ulcer healing was similar (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.69; 89 participants; two studies; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence), as was the eradication of rest pain after 28 days (RR 1.57; 95% CI 0.72 to 3.44; 38 participants; one study; low quality evidence), while amputation rates were not measured. Compared with placebo, the effects of oral prostacyclin analogue iloprost were similar for: healing ischaemic ulcers (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.54 to 2.29; 133 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.93; 135 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence), eradication of rest pain after eight weeks (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.63; 207 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.59; 201 participants; one study; moderate quality evidence), and amputation rates after six months (iloprost 200 mcg: RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.56; 209 participants; one study, and iloprost 400 mcg: RR 0.42; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.31; 213 participants; one study). When comparing folic acid with placebo in patients with Buerger's disease and hyperhomocysteinaemia, pain scores were similar, there were no new cases of amputation in either group, and ulcer healing was not assessed (very low quality evidence).Treatment side effects such as headaches, flushing or nausea were not associated with treatment interruptions or more serious consequences. Outcomes such as amputation-free survival, walking distance or pain-free walking distance, and ankle brachial index were not assessed by any study.Overall, the quality of the evidence was very low to moderate, with few studies, small numbers of participants, variation in severity of disease of participants between studies and missing information regarding for example baseline tobacco exposure. Moderate quality evidence suggests that intravenous iloprost (prostacyclin analogue) is more effective than aspirin for eradicating rest pain and healing ischaemic ulcers in Buerger's disease, but oral iloprost is not more effective than placebo. Verylow and low quality evidence suggests there is no difference between prostacyclin (iloprost and clinprost) and the prostaglandin analogue alprostadil for healing ulcers and relieving pain respectively in severe Buerger's disease. Very-low quality evidence suggests there is no difference in pain scores and amputation rates between folic acid and placebo, in people with Buerger's disease and hyperhomocysteinaemia. High quality trials assessing the effectiveness of pharmacological agents (intravenous or oral) in people with Buerger's disease are needed.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 70 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Other 5 7%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 16 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 17%
Social Sciences 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 18 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 November 2019.
All research outputs
#4,306,322
of 14,222,292 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,285
of 10,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,584
of 265,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#116
of 157 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,222,292 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 265,299 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 63% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 157 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.