↓ Skip to main content

Colloid solutions for fluid resuscitation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 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
Colloid solutions for fluid resuscitation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001319.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bunn, Frances, Trivedi, Daksha

Abstract

Colloids are widely used in the replacement of fluid volume. However, doubts remain as to which colloid is best. Different colloids vary in their molecular weight and therefore in the length of time they remain in the circulatory system. Because of this, and their other characteristics, they may differ in their safety and efficacy. To compare the effects of different colloid solutions in patients thought to need volume replacement. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Specialised Register (searched 1 December 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials 2011, issue 4 (The Cochrane Library); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1948 to November Week 3 2011); EMBASE (Ovid) (1974 to 2011 Week 47); ISI Web of Science: Science Citation Index Expanded (1970 to 1 December 2011); ISI Web of Science: Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (1990 to 1 December 2011); CINAHL (EBSCO) (1982 to 1 December 2011); National Research Register (2007, Issue 1) and PubMed (searched 1 December 2011). Bibliographies of trials retrieved were searched, and for the initial version of the review drug companies manufacturing colloids were contacted for information (1999). Randomised controlled trials comparing colloid solutions in critically ill and surgical patients thought to need volume replacement. Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. The outcomes sought were death, amount of whole blood transfused, and incidence of adverse reactions. Eighty-six trials, with a total of 5,484 participants, met the inclusion criteria. Quality of allocation concealment was judged to be adequate in 33 trials and poor or uncertain in the rest.Deaths were reported in 57 trials. For albumin or plasma protein fraction (PPF) versus hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 31 trials (n = 1719) reported mortality. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.31). When the trials by Boldt were removed from the analysis the pooled RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.20). For albumin or PPF versus gelatin, nine trials (n = 824) reported mortality. The RR was 0.89 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.21). Removing the study by Boldt from the analysis did not change the RR or CIs. For albumin or PPF versus dextran four trials (n = 360) reported mortality. The RR was 3.75 (95% CI 0.42 to 33.09). For gelatin versus HES 22 trials (n = 1612) reported mortality and the RR was 1.02 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.26). When the trials by Boldt were removed from the analysis the pooled RR was 1.03 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.27). RR was not estimable in the gelatin versus dextran and HES versus dextran groups.Forty-one trials recorded the amount of blood transfused; however, quantitative analysis was not possible due to skewness and variable reporting. Twenty-four trials recorded adverse reactions, with two studies reporting possible adverse reactions to gel and one to HES. From this review, there is no evidence that one colloid solution is more effective or safe than any other, although the CIs were wide and do not exclude clinically significant differences between colloids. Larger trials of fluid therapy are needed if clinically significant differences in mortality are to be detected or excluded.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Kazakhstan 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 204 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 35 16%
Student > Master 34 16%
Other 29 13%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 62 29%
Unknown 16 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 143 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 26 12%

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 01 January 2014.
All research outputs
#4,470,247
of 14,581,028 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,439
of 11,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,349
of 200,059 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#185
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,581,028 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 11,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 200,059 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 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.