↓ Skip to main content

Progesterone for acute traumatic brain injury

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 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
Progesterone for acute traumatic brain injury
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008409.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Junpeng Ma, Siqing Huang, Shu Qin, Chao You, Yunhui Zeng

Abstract

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability, and the identification of effective, inexpensive and widely practicable treatments for brain injury is of great public health importance worldwide. Progesterone is a naturally produced hormone that has well-defined pharmacokinetics, is widely available, inexpensive, and has steroidal, neuroactive and neurosteroidal actions in the central nervous system. It is, therefore, a potential candidate for treating TBI patients. However, uncertainty exists regarding the efficacy of this treatment. This is an update of our previous review of the same title, published in 2012. To assess the effects of progesterone on neurologic outcome, mortality and disability in patients with acute TBI. To assess the safety of progesterone in patients with acute TBI. We updated our searches of the following databases: the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register (30 September 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9, 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid; 1950 to 30 September 2016), Embase (Ovid; 1980 to 30 September 2016), Web of Science Core Collection: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S; 1990 to 30 September 2016); and trials registries: Clinicaltrials.gov (30 September 2016) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (30 September 2016). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of progesterone versus no progesterone (or placebo) for the treatment of people with acute TBI. Two review authors screened search results independently to identify potentially relevant studies for inclusion. Independently, two review authors selected trials that met the inclusion criteria from the results of the screened searches, with no disagreement. We included five RCTs in the review, with a total of 2392 participants. We assessed one trial to be at low risk of bias; two at unclear risk of bias (in one multicentred trial the possibility of centre effects was unclear, whilst the other trial was stopped early), and two at high risk of bias, due to issues with blinding and selective reporting of outcome data.All included studies reported the effects of progesterone on mortality and disability. Low quality evidence revealed no evidence of a difference in overall mortality between the progesterone group and placebo group (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28, I² = 62%; 5 studies, 2392 participants, 2376 pooled for analysis). Using the GRADE criteria, we assessed the quality of the evidence as low, due to the substantial inconsistency across studies.There was also no evidence of a difference in disability (unfavourable outcomes as assessed by the Glasgow Outcome Score) between the progesterone group and placebo group (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.06, I² = 37%; 4 studies; 2336 participants, 2260 pooled for analysis). We assessed the quality of this evidence to be moderate, due to inconsistency across studies.Data were not available for meta-analysis for the outcomes of mean intracranial pressure, blood pressure, body temperature or adverse events. However, data from three studies showed no difference in mean intracranial pressure between the groups. Data from another study showed no evidence of a difference in blood pressure or body temperature between the progesterone and placebo groups, although there was evidence that intravenous progesterone infusion increased the frequency of phlebitis (882 participants). There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of other adverse events between progesterone treatment and placebo in the other three studies that reported on adverse events. This updated review did not find evidence that progesterone could reduce mortality or disability in patients with TBI. However, concerns regarding inconsistency (heterogeneity among participants and the intervention used) across included studies reduce our confidence in these results.There is no evidence from the available data that progesterone therapy results in more adverse events than placebo, aside from evidence from a single study of an increase in phlebitis (in the case of intravascular progesterone).There were not enough data on the effects of progesterone therapy for our other outcomes of interest (intracranial pressure, blood pressure, body temperature) for us to be able to draw firm conclusions.Future trials would benefit from a more precise classification of TBI and attempts to optimise progesterone dosage and scheduling.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 133 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 16%
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Master 19 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 13%
Other 11 8%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 19 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 52%
Psychology 8 6%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 27 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 24 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,438,494
of 13,652,000 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,159
of 10,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,280
of 373,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#120
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,652,000 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,697 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 373,762 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.