↓ Skip to main content

Splenectomy versus conservative management for acute sequestration crises in people with sickle cell disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 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
Splenectomy versus conservative management for acute sequestration crises in people with sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003425.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shirley Owusu-Ofori, Tracey Remmington

Abstract

Acute splenic sequestration crises are a complication of sickle cell disease, with high mortality rates and frequent recurrence in survivors of first attacks. Splenectomy and blood transfusion, with their consequences, are the mainstay of long-term management used in different parts of the world. This is a 2017 update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002, and previously updated, most recently in 2015. To assess whether splenectomy (total or partial), to prevent acute splenic sequestration crises in people with sickle cell disease, improved survival and decreased morbidity in people with sickle cell disease, as compared with regular blood transfusions. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, which comprises of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearching relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings. We also searched clinical trial registries. Additional trials were sought from the reference lists of the trials and reviews identified by the search strategy.Date of the most recent search: 14 August 2017. All randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing splenectomy (total or partial) to prevent recurrence of acute splenic sequestration crises with no treatment or blood transfusions in people with sickle cell disease. No trials of splenectomy for acute splenic sequestration were found. No trials of splenectomy for acute splenic sequestration were found. Splenectomy, if full, will prevent further sequestration and if partial, may reduce the recurrence of acute splenic sequestration crises. However, there is a lack of evidence from trials showing that splenectomy improves survival and decreases morbidity in people with sickle cell disease. There is a need for a well-designed, adequately-powered, randomized controlled trial to assess the benefits and risks of splenectomy compared to transfusion programmes, as a means of improving survival and decreasing mortality from acute splenic sequestration in people with sickle cell disease.There are no trials included in the review and we have not identified any relevant trials up to August 2017. We will continue to run searches to identify any potentially relevant trials; however, we do not plan to update other sections of the review until new trials are published.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 22 28%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 19 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 08 November 2017.
All research outputs
#9,710,946
of 12,145,197 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,330
of 8,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#207,028
of 285,361 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#116
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,145,197 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,161 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.1. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 285,361 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.