↓ Skip to main content

Unfractionated or low-molecular weight heparin for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Unfractionated or low-molecular weight heparin for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006774.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nilesh Chande, Yongjun Wang, John WD McDonald, John K MacDonald

Abstract

There are a limited number of treatment options for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). An increased risk of thrombosis in UC coupled with an observation that UC patients being treated with anticoagulant therapy for thrombotic events had an improvement in their bowel symptoms led to trials examining the use of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in patients with active UC. To review randomized trials examining the efficacy of unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) for remission induction in patients with ulcerative colitis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane IBD/FBD group specialized trials register up to June 2014. We also searched review papers on ulcerative colitis and references from identified papers in an effort to identify additional randomized trials studying UFH or LMWH use in patients with ulcerative colitis. We searched abstracts from major gastroenterological meetings to identify research published in abstract form. Randomized controlled trials comparing UFH or LMWH to placebo or a control therapy for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis were included. Studies published in abstract form only were included if the authors could be contacted for further information. A data extraction form was developed and used to extract data from included studies. Two authors independently extracted data. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess study quality. Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was induction of remission, as defined by the studies. Secondary outcomes measures included: endoscopic remission as defined by the authors; clinical, histological or endoscopic improvement as defined by the authors; the occurrence of adverse events; the occurrence of bleeding; and improvements in quality of life as measured by a validated instrument. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval for dichotomous outcomes. Data were combined for analysis if they assessed the same treatments (UFH or LMWH versus placebo or other therapy). The overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. Five studies were eligible for inclusion (329 patients). Three studies (270 patients) compared low molecular weight heparin to placebo, one study (34 patients) compared LMWH in addition to standard therapy, and one study (25 patients) compared UFH to corticosteroids. The study comparing UFH to corticosteroids was rated at high risk of bias due to a single-blind design. The study that compared the addition of LMWH to standard therapy to standard therapy alone was rated at high risk of bias due to open-label design. The other three studies were rated as low risk of bias. LMWH administered subcutaneously showed no benefit over placebo for any outcome, including clinical remission (very low quality of evidence), and clinical, endoscopic, or histological improvement. High dose LMWH administered via an extended colon-release tablet demonstrated benefit over placebo for clinical remission (RR 1.39; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.77 ; P = 0.008; very low quality of evidence), clinical improvement (RR 1.28; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.55; P = 0.01; very low quality of evidence), and endoscopic improvement (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.47 ; P = 0.05) but not endoscopic remission or histologic improvement. LMWH was not beneficial when added to standard therapy for clinical remission, clinical improvement, endoscopic remission or endoscopic improvement. LMWH was well-tolerated but provided no significant benefit for quality of life. One study examining UFH versus corticosteroids for the treatment of severe UC demonstrated the inferiority of UFH for clinical improvement. More patients assigned to UFH had rectal hemorrhage as an adverse event. There is evidence to suggest that LMWH may be effective for the treatment of active UC. When administered by extended colon-release tablets, LMWH was more effective than placebo for treating outpatients with mild to moderate disease. This benefit needs to be confirmed by further randomized controlled studies. The same benefits were not seen when LMWH was administered subcutaneously at lower doses. There is no evidence to support the use of UFH for the treatment of active UC. A further trial of UFH in patients with mild disease may also be justified. Any benefit found would need to be weighed against a possible increased risk of rectal bleeding in patients with active UC.

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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
Colombia 1 2%
Unknown 48 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Researcher 5 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 13 26%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 42%
Unspecified 4 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 12 24%

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 09 August 2015.
All research outputs
#7,860,141
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,076
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,817
of 234,763 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#218
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 234,763 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.