↓ Skip to main content

Plasma chitotriosidase activity versus CCL18 level for assessing type I Gaucher disease severity: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Plasma chitotriosidase activity versus CCL18 level for assessing type I Gaucher disease severity: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0483-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tatiana Raskovalova, Patrick B. Deegan, Ruby Yang, Elena Pavlova, Jérome Stirnemann, José Labarère, Ari Zimran, Pramod K. Mistry, Marc Berger

Abstract

Gaucher disease (GD) is an autosomal recessive lysosomal storage disorder caused by deficiency in acid beta-glucosidase. GD exhibits a wide clinical spectrum of disease severity with an unpredictable natural course. Plasma chitotriosidase activity and CC chemokine ligand 18 (CCL18) have been exchangeably used for monitoring GD activity and response to enzyme replacement therapy in conjunction with clinical assessment. Yet, a large-scale head-to-head comparison of these two biomarkers is currently lacking. We propose a collaborative systematic review with meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) to compare the accuracy of plasma chitotriosidase activity and CCL18 in assessing type I (i.e., non-neuropathic) GD severity. Eligible studies include cross-sectional, cohort, and randomized controlled studies recording both plasma chitotriosidase activity and CCL18 level at baseline and/or at follow-up in consecutive children or adult patients with type I GD. Pre-specified surrogate outcomes reflecting GD activity include liver and spleen volume, hemoglobin concentration, platelet count, and symptomatic bone events with imaging confirmation. Primary studies will be identified by searching Medline (1995 onwards), EMBASE (1995 onwards), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). Electronic search will be complemented by contacting research groups in order to identify unpublished relevant studies. Where possible, IPD will be extracted from published articles. Corresponding authors will be invited to collaborate by supplying IPD. The methodological quality of retrieved studies will be appraised for each study outcome, using a checklist adapted from the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. The primary outcome will be a composite of liver volume >1.25 multiple of normal (MN), spleen volume >5 MN, hemoglobin concentration <11 g/dL, or platelet count <100 × 10(9)/L. Effect size estimates for biomarker comparative accuracy in predicting outcomes will be reported as differences in areas under receiver operating characteristic curves along with 95% confidence intervals. Effect size estimates will be reported as (weighted) mean differences along with 95% confidence intervals for each biomarker according to outcomes. IPD meta-analysis will be conducted with both one- and two-stage approaches. Valid and precise accuracy estimates will be derived for CCL18 relative to plasma chitotriosidase activity in discriminating patients according to GD severity. PROSPERO 2015 CRD42015027243.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Other 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 9%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 11 31%

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 26 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,501,191
of 9,730,393 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#692
of 810 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,020
of 261,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#31
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,730,393 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 810 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 261,367 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.