↓ Skip to main content

Intravenous immunoglobulin for presumed viral myocarditis in children and adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
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 (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Intravenous immunoglobulin for presumed viral myocarditis in children and adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004370.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joan Robinson, Lisa Hartling, Ben Vandermeer, Terry P Klassen

Abstract

This is an update of a previous review. Case reports and case series have described dramatic responses to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) in people with presumed viral myocarditis, and its administration has become commonplace. The primary objective of this review was to compare transplant-free survival of adults and children with presumed viral myocarditis treated with IVIG versus those who did not receive IVIG. A secondary objective was to determine if a group of patients with presumed viral myocarditis could be identified (on the basis of age, duration of symptoms, acuity of onset of symptoms, cardiac function at presentation, virological results or the presence or absence of histological evidence of acute myocarditis on cardiac biopsy in patients in whom a biopsy was performed) who would be the most likely to benefit from IVIG. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 12 of 12), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (2013, Issue 4 of 4), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to January Week 3 2014), EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to Week 4 2014), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) EBSCO, Web of Science (Thomson Reuters, 1970 to 24 January 2014), the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) (1982 to 30 January 2014), trials registries and conference proceedings. We contacted authors of trials and checked reference lists of relevant papers. We applied no language restrictions. We included studies if (1) participants had a clinical diagnosis of acute myocarditis with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 0.45, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) > 2 standard deviations (SDs) above the norm or a shortening fraction (SF) > 2 SDs below the mean with duration of cardiac symptoms < 6 months; (2) participants had no evidence of non-infectious or bacterial cardiac disease; and (3) participants were randomly assigned to receive at least 1 g/kg of IVIG versus no IVIG or placebo. We excluded studies if (1) participants had received immunosuppression before outcome assessment; or (2) onset of myocarditis was reported to occur < 6 months post partum. Two review authors screened searches and extracted data independently. We assessed quality using the 'Risk of bias' tool. Meta-analysis was not possible because only two relevant studies were found, and researchers analysed markedly different populations. In this update, review authors added one study to the study from the original review. The first relevant study involved 62 adults with recent-onset dilated cardiomyopathy randomly assigned to receive IVIG or an equivalent volume of 0.1% albumin in a blinded fashion. The overall risk of bias was unclear. The incidence of death or the requirement for cardiac transplant or placement of a left ventricular assist device was low in both groups (odds ratio (OR) for event-free survival 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 2.30). Follow-up at six months and at 12 months showed equivalent improvement in LVEF (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.07 at six months; MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.08 at 12 months). Functional capacity as assessed by peak oxygen consumption was equivalent in the two groups at 12 months (MD -0.80, 95% CI -4.57 to 2.97). Infusion-related side effects were more common in the treated group, but all were reported to be mild (OR 30.16, 95% CI 1.69 to 539.42).The second study added at this update included 83 children in India with suspected viral encephalitis and myocarditis. The overall risk of bias was high. The odds ratio for event-free survival was 7.39 (95% CI 0.91 to 59.86). Follow-up occurred only until hospital discharge, and LVEF was 49.5% in the treated group versus 35.9% in the placebo group (risk difference 13.6%, 95% CI 5.1 to 22.1%; P value = 0.001). Evidence from one trial does not support the use of IVIG for the treatment of adults with presumed viral myocarditis. The only paediatric trial had high risk of bias but suggested that benefit may be seen in the select group of children beyond the neonatal period who have viral encephalitis with myocarditis. Until higher-quality studies have demonstrated benefit in a particular group of patients, IVIG for presumed viral myocarditis should not be provided as routine practice in any situation. Further studies of the pathophysiology of myocarditis would lead to improved diagnostic criteria, which would facilitate future research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Brazil 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 131 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 17%
Other 21 15%
Unspecified 20 14%
Researcher 15 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 9%
Other 46 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 82 59%
Unspecified 28 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 13 9%

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 29 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,413,549
of 13,292,231 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,299
of 10,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,870
of 233,035 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#145
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,292,231 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,546 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 233,035 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.