↓ Skip to main content

Antifibrinolytic amino acids for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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
Antifibrinolytic amino acids for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006007.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arturo J Martí-Carvajal, Ivan Solà

Abstract

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding is one of the most frequent causes of morbidity and mortality in the course of liver cirrhosis. People with liver disease frequently have haemostatic abnormalities such as hyperfibrinolysis. Therefore, antifibrinolytic amino acids have been proposed to be used as supplementary interventions alongside any of the primary treatments for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases. This is an update of this Cochrane review. To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of antifibrinolytic amino acids for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver disease. We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register (February 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2 of 12, 2015), MEDLINE (Ovid SP) (1946 to February 2015), EMBASE (Ovid SP) (1974 to February 2015), Science Citation Index EXPANDED (1900 to February 2015), LILACS (1982 to February 2015), World Health Organization Clinical Trials Search Portal (accessed 26 February 2015), and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (accessed 26 February 2015). We scrutinised the reference lists of the retrieved publications. Randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. Observational studies for assessment of harms. We planned to summarise data from randomised clinical trials using standard Cochrane methodologies and assessed according to the GRADE approach. We found no randomised clinical trials assessing antifibrinolytic amino acids for treating upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver disease. We did not identify quasi-randomised, historically controlled, or observational studies in which we could assess harms. This updated Cochrane review identified no randomised clinical trials assessing the benefits and harms of antifibrinolytic amino acids for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver disease. The benefits and harms of antifibrinolytic amino acids need to be tested in randomised clinical trials. Unless randomised clinical trials are conducted to assess the trade-off between benefits and harms, we cannot recommend or refute antifibrinolytic amino acids for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver diseases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 43%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Student > Postgraduate 1 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 14%
Researcher 1 14%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 71%
Psychology 1 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 June 2015.
All research outputs
#7,230,450
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,625
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,321
of 234,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#202
of 240 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 234,604 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 240 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.