↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for preventing reactions to snake antivenom

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 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
Interventions for preventing reactions to snake antivenom
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2000
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002153
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nuchpraryoon, I, Garner, P, Nuchprayoon, Issarang, Garner, Paul

Abstract

Antivenom is used to neutralise snake bite toxins in people showing evidence of envenomation. It is made from animal sera, and adverse effects, including life threatening anaphylaxis, are common. To assess the effects of drugs given routinely with snake antivenom to prevent adverse effects. Cochrane controlled trials register; contact with researchers in the field. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials testing routine adrenaline (epinephrine), antihistamines, or corticosteroids. The two authors applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality, and extracted the data. We sought additional data from trialists where required. One trial in Sri Lanka (n = 105) giving adrenaline with polyspecific antivenom showed fewer adverse reactions in the adrenaline group, and this effect was preserved when stratified for severity. One trial in Brazil (n = 101) using three types of Bothrops antivenom showed no benefit of antihistamine drugs. Routine prophylactic adrenaline for polyvalent antivenom known to have high adverse event rates seems sensible, based on this one trial. If clinicians believe local factors do not justify routine adrenaline, then they should test their belief in a randomised trial. Antihistamine appears to be of no obvious benefit in preventing acute reactions from antivenoms.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 28 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Unspecified 2 7%
Other 9 30%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 63%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 13%
Unspecified 3 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 3%

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 2010.
All research outputs
#3,453,649
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,386
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,215
of 273,079 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#125
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 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 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 273,079 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 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.