↓ Skip to main content

Clinical effectiveness of cell therapies in patients with chronic liver disease and acute-on-chronic liver failure: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Clinical effectiveness of cell therapies in patients with chronic liver disease and acute-on-chronic liver failure: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0277-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nwe Ni Than, Claire L. Tomlinson, Debashis Haldar, Andrew L. King, David Moore, Philip N. Newsome

Abstract

Chronic liver disease (CLD) is a major health burden worldwide. Liver cirrhosis, a form of CLD is the fifth most common cause of death in the UK. Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is the result of an acute insult superimposed on patients with liver cirrhosis as a result of precipitating events such as infection or bleeding. ACLF has a high associated mortality as a result of multi-organ failure. The only effective treatment for CLD is liver transplantation, but the treatment is limited by shortage of donor organs. As a result, alternative treatments such as cell therapies have been studied in patients with liver diseases. This study will systematically review the evidence on clinical effectiveness of cell therapies in patients. All types of study design that investigate the effectiveness of cell therapies (haematopoietic, mesenchymal and unsorted cell types) of autologous or allogeneic origin and/or the use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with CLD including ACLF will be included (except case reports). Both autologous and allogenic cell types will be included. The primary outcomes of interest are survival, model for end-stage liver disease score, quality of life and adverse events. Secondary outcomes include liver function tests, Child-Pugh score and events of liver decompensation. A literature search will be conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE, HTA databases). Trial registers will be searched for ongoing trials, as will conference proceedings. Reference lists of relevant articles and systematic reviews will be screened. Randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence is likely to be scant; therefore, controlled trials and concurrently controlled observational studies will be primarily analysed and uncontrolled observational studies will be analysed where primary outcomes are not reported in the control studies or where uncontrolled studies have longer follow-up. Initial screening of studies will be carried by one reviewer with a proportion checked by another reviewer. Full-text selection will be performed by two reviewers independently against the pre-defined selection criteria. The data collection and the risk of bias assessment will be completed by one reviewer and counter checked by another reviewer for all selected studies. Where appropriate, data will be meta-analysed for each study design, therapy and outcome. Data specifically on ACLF will be treated as a subgroup. This systematic review will identify the available evidence on the effectiveness of cell therapies in patients with CLD and in ACLF subgroup. The findings will aid decision-making by clinicians and health service leaders. PROSPERO CRD42016016104.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
Unknown 55 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 18%
Student > Master 10 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Other 13 23%
Unknown 4 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 54%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 5 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 20 April 2017.
All research outputs
#10,181,500
of 15,975,798 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,143
of 1,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,451
of 268,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#15
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,975,798 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,426 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 268,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.