↓ Skip to main content

Adenosine versus intravenous calcium channel antagonists for supraventricular tachycardia. - PubMed - NCBI

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 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 (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
64 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
4 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Adenosine versus intravenous calcium channel antagonists for supraventricular tachycardia. - PubMed - NCBI
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005154.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samer Alabed, Ammar Sabouni, Rui Providencia, Edmond Atallah, Mohammed Qintar, Timothy JA Chico

Abstract

People with supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) frequently are symptomatic and present to the emergency department for treatment. Although vagal manoeuvres may terminate SVT, they often fail, and subsequently adenosine or calcium channel antagonists (CCAs) are administered. Both are known to be effective, but both have a significant side effect profile. This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2006. To review all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compare effects of adenosine versus CCAs in terminating SVT. We identified studies by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers in July 2017. We checked bibliographies of identified studies and applied no language restrictions. We planned to include all RCTs that compare adenosine versus a CCA for patients of any age presenting with SVT. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently checked results of searches to identify relevant studies and resolved differences by discussion with a third review author. At least two review authors independently assessed each included study and extracted study data. We entered extracted data into Review Manager 5. Primary outcomes were rate of reversion to sinus rhythm and major adverse effects of adenosine and CCAs. Secondary outcomes were rate of recurrence, time to reversion, and minor adverse outcomes. We measured outcomes by calculating odds ratios (ORs) and assessed the quality of primary outcomes using the GRADE approach through the GRADEproGDT website. We identified two new studies for inclusion in the review update; the review now includes seven trials with 622 participants who presented to an emergency department with SVT. All included studies were RCTs, but only three described the randomisation process, and none had blinded participants, personnel, or outcome assessors to the intervention given. Moderate-quality evidence shows no differences in the number of people reverting to sinus rhythm who were treated with adenosine or CCA (89.7% vs 92.9%; OR 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 2.68; participants = 622; studies = 7; I(2) = 36%). Low-quality evidence suggests no appreciable differences in major adverse event rates between CCAs and adenosine. Researchers reported only one case of hypotension in the CCA group and none in the adenosine group (0.66% vs 0%; OR 3.09, 95% CI 0.12 to 76.71; participants = 306; studies = 3; I(2) = 0%). Included trials did not report length of stay in hospital nor patient satisfaction. Moderate-quality evidence shows no differences in effects of adenosine and calcium channel antagonists for treatment of SVT on reverting to sinus rhythm, and low-quality evidence suggests no appreciable differences in the incidence of hypotension. A study comparing patient experiences and prospectively studied adverse events would provide evidence on which treatment is preferable for management of SVT.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 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 4 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 4 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 25%
Lecturer 1 25%
Other 1 25%
Student > Postgraduate 1 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 50%
Unspecified 1 25%
Philosophy 1 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 February 2018.
All research outputs
#256,759
of 11,657,610 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#803
of 9,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,227
of 271,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#24
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,657,610 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,178 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 271,918 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.