↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1 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
Interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010985.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arturo J Martí-Carvajal, Cristina Elena Martí-Amarista

Abstract

Sickle cell disease is the most common hemoglobinopathy occurring worldwide and sickle cell intrahepatic cholestasis is a complication long recognized in this population. Cholestatic liver diseases are characterized by impaired formation or excretion (or both) of bile from the liver. There is a need to assess the clinical benefits and harms of the interventions used to treat intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. To assess the benefits and harms of the interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease. We searched the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched the LILACS database (1982 to 23 May 2017), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal (23 May 2017) and ClinicalTrials.gov.Date of last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 12 April 2017. We searched for published or unpublished randomised controlled trials. Each author intended to independently extract data and assess the risk of bias of the trials by standard Cochrane methodologies; however, no trials were included in the review. There were no randomised controlled trials identified. This updated Cochrane Review did not identify any randomised controlled trials assessing interventions for treating intrahepatic cholestasis in people with sickle cell disease. Randomised controlled trials are needed to establish the optimum treatment for this condition.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 1 Mendeley reader of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 100%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 1 100%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 June 2019.
All research outputs
#4,055,349
of 13,555,081 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,062
of 10,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#96,154
of 268,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#193
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,555,081 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,645 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 268,421 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 257 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.