↓ Skip to main content

Antifibrinolytic therapy to reduce haemoptysis from any cause

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
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 (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Antifibrinolytic therapy to reduce haemoptysis from any cause
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008711.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriela Prutsky, Juan Pablo Domecq, Carlos A Salazar, Roberto Accinelli

Abstract

Haemoptysis is a common pathology around the world, occurring with more frequency in low-income countries. It has different etiologies, many of which have infectious characteristics. Antifibrinolytic agents are commonly used to manage bleeding from different sources, but their usefulness in pulmonology is unclear. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytic agents in reducing the volume and duration of haemoptysis in adult and paediatric patients. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) in The Cochrane Library, EMBASE and LILACS for publications that describe randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antifibrinolytic therapy in patients presenting with haemoptysis. We also performed an independent search in MEDLINE for relevant trials not yet included in CENTRAL or DARE. Searches are up to date to the 19th September 2016. We conducted electronic and manual searches of relevant national and international journals. We reviewed the reference lists of included studies to locate relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). An additional search was carried out to find unpublished RCTs. We included RCTs designed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of antifibrinolytic agents in reducing haemoptysis in adult and paediatric patients of both genders presenting with haemoptysis of any etiology and severity. The intervention of interest was the administration of antifibrinolytic agents compared with placebo or no treatment. All reviewers independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data tables pre-designed for this review. The electronic literature search identified 1 original study that met the eligibility criteria. One unpublished study was also identified through manual searches. Therefore two randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria: Tscheikuna 2002 (via electronic searches) and Ruiz 1994 (via manual searches). Tscheikuna 2002, a double-blind RCT performed in Thailand, evaluated the effectiveness of tranexamic acid (TXA, an antifibrinolytic agent) administered orally in 46 hospital in- and outpatients with haemoptysis of various etiologies. Ruiz 1994, a double-blind RCT performed in Peru, evaluated the effectiveness of intravenous TXA in 24 hospitalised patients presenting with haemoptysis secondary to tuberculosis.Pooled together, results demonstrated a significant reduction in bleeding time between patients receiving TXA and patients receiving placebo with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of -19.47 (95% CI -26.90 to -12.03 hours), but with high heterogeneity (I² = 52%). TXA did not affect remission of haemoptysis evaluated at seven days after the start of treatment. Adverse effects caused by the drug's mechanism of action were not reported. There was no significant difference in the incidence of mild side effects between active and placebo groups (OR 3.13, 95% CI 0.80 to 12.24). There is insufficient evidence to judge whether antifibrinolytics should be used to treat haemoptysis from any cause, though limited evidence suggests they may reduce the duration of bleeding.

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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 97 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 20%
Unspecified 16 16%
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Postgraduate 10 10%
Other 27 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 52 52%
Unspecified 19 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 9 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 13 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,403,611
of 13,488,347 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,219
of 10,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,101
of 289,393 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#96
of 168 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,488,347 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,619 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 50% 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 289,393 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 168 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.