↓ Skip to main content

Treatments for priapism in boys and men with sickle cell disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 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
9 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Treatments for priapism in boys and men with sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004198.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francis I Chinegwundoh, Sherie Smith, Kofi A Anie

Abstract

Sickle cell disease comprises a group of genetic haemoglobin disorders. The predominant symptom associated with sickle cell disease is pain resulting from the occlusion of small blood vessels by abnormally 'sickle-shaped' red blood cells. There are other complications, including chronic organ damage and prolonged painful erection of the penis, known as priapism. Severity of sickle cell disease is variable, and treatment is usually symptomatic. Priapism affects up to half of all men with sickle cell disease, however, there is no consistency in treatment. We therefore need to know the best way of treating this complication in order to offer an effective interventional approach to all affected individuals. To assess the benefits and risks of different treatments for stuttering (repeated short episodes) and fulminant (lasting for six hours or more) priapism in sickle cell disease. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched trial registries.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 15 September 2017.Date of most recent search of trial registries and of Embase: 12 December 2016. All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing non-surgical or surgical treatment with placebo or no treatment, or with another intervention for stuttering or fulminant priapism. The authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. Three trials with 102 participants were identified and met the criteria for inclusion in this review. These trials compared stilboestrol to placebo, sildenafil to placebo and ephedrine or etilefrine to placebo and ranged in duration from two weeks to six months. All of the trials were conducted in an outpatient setting in Jamaica, Nigeria and the UK. None of the trials measured our first primary outcome, detumescence but all three trials reported on the reduction in frequency of stuttering priapism, our second primary outcome. No significant effect of any of the treatments was seen compared to placebo. Immediate side effects were not found to be significantly different from placebo in the two trials where this information was reported. We considered the quality of evidence to be low to very low as all of the trials were at risk of bias and all had low participant numbers. There is a lack of evidence for the benefits or risks of the different treatments for both stuttering and fulminant priapism in sickle cell disease. This systematic review has clearly identified the need for well-designed, adequately-powered, multicentre randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of specific interventions for priapism in sickle cell disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 21%
Student > Bachelor 10 19%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 9 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 17%
Social Sciences 6 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Psychology 3 6%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 10 19%

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 07 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,168,923
of 14,259,275 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,698
of 10,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,287
of 272,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,259,275 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 10,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 272,889 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 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.