↓ Skip to main content

Snake antivenom for snake venom induced consumption coagulopathy

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

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Snake antivenom for snake venom induced consumption coagulopathy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011428.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kalana Maduwage, Nick A Buckley, H Janaka de Silva, David G Lalloo, Geoffrey K Isbister

Abstract

Snake venom induced consumption coagulopathy is a major systemic effect of envenoming. Observational studies suggest that antivenom improves outcomes for venom induced consumption coagulopathy in some snakebites and not others. However, the effectiveness of snake antivenom in all cases of venom induced consumption coagulopathy is controversial. To assess the effect of snake antivenom as a treatment for venom induced consumption coagulopathy in people with snake bite. The search was done on 30 January 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid OLDMEDLINE(R), Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), three other sources, clinical trials registers, and we also screened reference lists. All completed, published or unpublished, randomised, controlled trials with a placebo or no treatment arm, where snake antivenom was administered for venom induced consumption coagulopathy in humans with snake bites. Two authors reviewed the identified trials and independently applied the selection criteria. No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Randomised placebo-controlled trials are required to investigate the effectiveness of snake antivenom for clinically relevant outcomes in patients with venom induced consumption coagulopathy resulting from snake bite. Although ethically difficult, the routine administration of a treatment that has a significant risk of anaphylaxis cannot continue without strong evidence of benefit.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 59 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 23%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Other 4 7%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 7 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 52%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 8 13%

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 17 June 2015.
All research outputs
#11,143,455
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,923
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,491
of 234,896 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#229
of 231 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 234,896 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 231 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.