↓ Skip to main content

Adrenaline (epinephrine) for the treatment of anaphylaxis with and without shock

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Adrenaline (epinephrine) for the treatment of anaphylaxis with and without shock
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2008
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006312.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aziz Sheikh, Yasser A Shehata, Simon GA Brown, F Estelle R Simons

Abstract

Anaphylaxis is a serious hypersensitivity reaction that is rapid in onset and may cause death. Adrenaline is recommended as the initial treatment of choice for anaphylaxis. To assess the benefits and harms of adrenaline (epinephrine) in the treatment of anaphylaxis. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2007), EMBASE (1966 to March 2007), CINAHL (1982 to March 2007), BIOSIS (to March 2007), ISI Web of Knowledge (to March 2007) and LILACS (to March 2007). We also searched websites listing ongoing trials: http://clinicaltrials.gov/, http://www.controlledtrials.com and http://www.actr.org.au/; and contacted pharmaceutical companies and international experts in anaphylaxis in an attempt to locate unpublished material. Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing adrenaline with no intervention, placebo or other adrenergic agonists were eligible for inclusion. Two authors independently assessed articles for inclusion. We found no studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Based on this review, we are unable to make any new recommendations on the use of adrenaline for the treatment of anaphylaxis. Although there is a need for randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of high methodological quality in order to define the true extent of benefits from the administration of adrenaline in anaphylaxis, such trials are unlikely to be performed in individuals with anaphylaxis. Indeed, they might be unethical because prompt treatment with adrenaline is deemed to be critically important for survival in anaphylaxis. Also, such studies would be difficult to conduct because anaphylactic episodes usually occur without warning, often in a non-medical setting, and differ in severity both among individuals and from one episode to another in the same individual. Consequently, obtaining baseline measurements and frequent timed measurements might be difficult, or impossible, to obtain. In the absence of appropriate trials, we recommend, albeit on the basis of less than optimal evidence, that adrenaline administration by intramuscular (i.m.) injection should still be regarded as first-line treatment for the management of anaphylaxis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 3%
United States 3 3%
Japan 2 2%
Australia 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 108 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Researcher 20 17%
Other 17 14%
Student > Bachelor 17 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Other 51 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 80%
Unspecified 18 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 7 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 26 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,011,647
of 13,560,184 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,096
of 10,632 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,080
of 98,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#16
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,560,184 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,632 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 98,084 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.