↓ 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 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 93 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 17%
Student > Master 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 8 8%
Other 22 23%
Unknown 17 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 12%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 20 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 30 April 2020.
All research outputs
#664,271
of 15,549,524 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,815
of 11,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,504
of 271,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#65
of 257 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,549,524 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,211 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
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 271,850 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.