↓ Skip to main content

Different infusion durations for preventing platinum-induced hearing loss in children with cancer

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
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
Different infusion durations for preventing platinum-induced hearing loss in children with cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010885.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorrit W van As, Henk van den Berg, Elvira C van Dalen

Abstract

Platinum-based therapy, including cisplatin, carboplatin or oxaliplatin, or a combination of these, is used to treat a variety of paediatric malignancies. Unfortunately, one of the most important adverse effects is the occurrence of hearing loss or ototoxicity. In an effort to prevent this ototoxicity, different platinum infusion durations have been studied. This review is an update of a previously published Cochrane review. To assess the effects of different durations of platinum infusion to prevent hearing loss or tinnitus, or both, in children with cancer. Secondary objectives were to assess possible effects of these infusion durations on: a) anti-tumour efficacy of platinum-based therapy, b) adverse effects other than hearing loss or tinnitus, and c) quality of life. We searched the electronic databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2016, Issue 4), MEDLINE (PubMed) (1945 to 18 May 2016) and EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to 18 May 2016). In addition, we handsearched reference lists of relevant articles and we assessed the conference proceedings of the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (2009 up to and including 2015) and the American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (2014 and 2015). We scanned ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP; apps.who.int/trialsearch) for ongoing trials (searched on 20 May 2016 and 24 May 2016 respectively). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) comparing different platinum infusion durations in children with cancer. Only the platinum infusion duration could differ between the treatment groups. Two review authors independently performed the study selection, risk of bias assessment and GRADE assessment of included studies, and data extraction including adverse effects. Analyses were performed according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We identified one RCT and no CCTs; in this update no additional studies were identified. The RCT (total number of children = 91) evaluated the use of a continuous cisplatin infusion (N = 43) versus a one-hour bolus cisplatin infusion (N = 48) in children with neuroblastoma. For the continuous infusion, cisplatin was administered on days 1 to 5 of the cycle but it is unclear if the infusion duration was a total of 5 days. Methodological limitations were present. Only results from shortly after induction therapy were provided. No clear evidence of a difference in hearing loss (defined as asymptomatic and symptomatic disease combined) between the different infusion durations was identified as results were imprecise (risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 4.13, low quality evidence). Although the numbers of children were not provided, it was stated that tumour response was equivalent in both treatment arms. With regard to adverse effects other than ototoxicity we were only able to assess toxic deaths. Again, the confidence interval of the estimated effect was too wide to exclude differences between the treatment groups (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 17.31, low quality evidence). No data were available for the other outcomes of interest (i.e. tinnitus, overall survival, event-free survival and quality of life) or for other (combinations of) infusion durations or other platinum analogues. Since only one eligible RCT evaluating the use of a continuous cisplatin infusion versus a one-hour bolus cisplatin infusion was found, and that had methodological limitations, no definitive conclusions can be made. It should be noted that 'no evidence of effect', as identified in this review, is not the same as 'evidence of no effect'. For other (combinations of) infusion durations and other platinum analogues no eligible studies were identified. More high quality research is needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 25%
Student > Master 8 22%
Librarian 2 6%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Professor 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Sports and Recreations 3 8%
Psychology 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 10 28%

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 27 December 2016.
All research outputs
#6,509,636
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,219
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,774
of 262,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#106
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. 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 262,636 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 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 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.