↓ Skip to main content

Treatment for avascular necrosis of bone in people with sickle cell disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 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
Treatment for avascular necrosis of bone in people with sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004344.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arturo J Martí-Carvajal, Ivan Solà, Luis H Agreda-Pérez

Abstract

Avascular necrosis of bone is a frequent and severe complication of sickle cell disease and its treatment is not standardised. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. To determine the impact of any surgical procedure compared with other surgical interventions or non-surgical procedures, on avascular necrosis of bone in people with sickle cell disease in terms of efficacy and safety. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. Additional trials were sought from the reference lists of papers identified by the search strategy.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 27 May 2016. Randomized clinical trials comparing specific therapies for avascular necrosis of bone in people with sickle cell disease. Each author independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Since only one trial was identified, meta-analysis was not possible. One trial (46 participants) was eligible for inclusion. After randomization eight participants were withdrawn, mainly because they declined to participate in the trial. Data were analysed for 38 participants at the end of the trial. After a mean follow up of three years, hip core decompression and physical therapy did not show clinical improvement when compared with physical therapy alone using the score from the original trial (an improvement of 18.1 points for those treated with intervention therapy versus an improvement of 15.7 points with control therapy). There was no significant statistical difference between groups regarding major complications (hip pain, risk ratio 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.60; vaso-occlusive crises, risk ratio 1.14 (95% confidence interval 0.72 to 1.80; very low quality of evidence); and acute chest syndrome, risk ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 0.44 to 2.56; very low quality of evidence)). This trial did not report results on mortality or quality of life. We found no evidence that adding hip core decompression to physical therapy achieves clinical improvement in people with sickle cell disease with avascular necrosis of bone compared to physical therapy alone. However, we highlight that our conclusion is based on one trial with high attrition rates. Further randomized controlled trials are necessary to evaluate the role of hip-core depression for this clinical condition. Endpoints should focus on participants' subjective experience (e.g. quality of life and pain) as well as more objective 'time-to-event' measures (e.g. mortality, survival, hip longevity). The availability of participants to allow adequate trial power will be a key consideration for endpoint choice.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Algeria 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 146 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 22%
Student > Bachelor 24 15%
Unspecified 20 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 11%
Researcher 16 10%
Other 44 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 50%
Unspecified 24 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 10%
Psychology 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Other 19 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#1,943,258
of 13,532,774 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,628
of 10,636 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,949
of 264,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#75
of 156 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,532,774 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,636 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 264,164 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 156 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.