↓ Skip to main content

Fluid replacement therapy for acute episodes of pain 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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Fluid replacement therapy for acute episodes of pain in people with sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005406.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Uduak Okomo, Martin M Meremikwu

Abstract

Treating vaso-occlusive painful crises in people with sickle cell disease is complex and requires multiple interventions. Extra fluids are routinely given as adjunct treatment, regardless of the individual's state of hydration with the aim of slowing or stopping the sickling process and thereby alleviating pain. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane Review. To determine the optimal route, quantity and type of fluid replacement for people with sickle cell disease with acute painful crises. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register which comprises of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.We also conducted searches of Embase (November 2007), LILACS, www.ClinicalTrials.gov (05 January 2010), and the WHO ICTRP (30 June 2017).Date of most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 16 February 2017. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that compared the administration of supplemental fluids adjunctive to analgesics by any route in people with any type of sickle cell disease during an acute painful episode, under medical supervision (inpatient, day care or community). No relevant trials have yet been identified. Sixteen trials were identified by the searches, all of which were not eligible for inclusion in the review. Treating vaso-occlusive crises is complex and requires multiple interventions. Extra fluids, generally oral or intravenous, are routinely administered during acute painful episodes to people with sickle cell disease regardless of the individual's state of hydration. Reports of their use during these acute painful episodes do not state the efficacy of any single route, type or quantity of fluid compared to another. However, there are no randomised controlled trials that have assessed the safety and efficacy of different routes, types or quantities of fluid. This systematic review identifies the need for a multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy and possible adverse effects of different routes, types and quantities of fluid administered to people with sickle cell disease during acute painful episodes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 4%
Canada 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Unknown 106 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 19%
Researcher 16 14%
Other 12 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Other 43 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Unspecified 12 11%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Other 16 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 12 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,895,268
of 13,190,464 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,435
of 10,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,595
of 265,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#160
of 258 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,190,464 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 265,827 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 258 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.