↓ Skip to main content

Stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
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 (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
264 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
Stem cell treatment for acute myocardial infarction
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006536.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sheila A Fisher, Huajun Zhang, Carolyn Doree, Anthony Mathur, Enca Martin-Rendon

Abstract

Cell transplantation offers a potential therapeutic approach to the repair and regeneration of damaged vascular and cardiac tissue after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This has resulted in multiple randomised controlled trials (RCTs) across the world. To determine the safety and efficacy of autologous adult bone marrow stem cells as a treatment for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), focusing on clinical outcomes. This Cochrane review is an update of a previous version (published in 2012). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1950 to March 2015), EMBASE (1974 to March 2015), CINAHL (1982 to March 2015) and the Transfusion Evidence Library (1980 to March 2015). In addition, we searched several international and ongoing trial databases in March 2015 and handsearched relevant conference proceedings to January 2011. RCTs comparing autologous bone marrow-derived cells with no cells in patients diagnosed with AMI were eligible. Two review authors independently screened all references, assessed the risk of bias of the included trials and extracted data. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models throughout. We analysed outcomes at short-term (less than 12 months) and long-term (12 months or more) follow-up. Dichotomous outcomes are reported as risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcomes are reported as mean difference (MD) or standardised MD (SMD). We performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the results in the context of the risk of selection, performance and attrition bias. Exploratory subgroup analysis investigated the effects of baseline cardiac function (left ventricular ejection fraction, LVEF) and cell dose, type and timing of administration, as well as the use of heparin in the final cell solution. Forty-one RCTs with a total of 2732 participants (1564 cell therapy, 1168 controls) were eligible for inclusion. Cell treatment was not associated with any changes in the risk of all-cause mortality (34/538 versus 32/458; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.50; 996 participants; 14 studies; moderate quality evidence), cardiovascular mortality (23/277 versus 18/250; RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.99; 527 participants; nine studies; moderate quality evidence) or a composite measure of mortality, reinfarction and re-hospitalisation for heart failure (24/262 versus 33/235; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.10; 497 participants; six studies; moderate quality evidence) at long-term follow-up. Statistical heterogeneity was low (I(2) = 0% to 12%). Serious periprocedural adverse events were rare and were generally unlikely to be related to cell therapy. Additionally, cell therapy had no effect on morbidity, quality of life/performance or LVEF measured by magnetic resonance imaging. Meta-analyses of LVEF measured by echocardiography, single photon emission computed tomography and left ventricular angiography showed evidence of differences in mean LVEF between treatment groups although the mean differences ranged between 2% and 5%, which are accepted not to be clinically relevant. Results were robust to the risk of selection, performance and attrition bias from individual studies. The results of this review suggest that there is insufficient evidence for a beneficial effect of cell therapy for AMI patients. However, most of the evidence comes from small trials that showed no difference in clinically relevant outcomes. Further adequately powered trials are needed and until then the efficacy of this intervention remains unproven.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 264 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 259 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 16%
Student > Bachelor 38 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 14%
Researcher 31 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 8%
Other 55 21%
Unknown 39 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 114 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 4%
Other 31 12%
Unknown 50 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 04 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,668,762
of 14,794,860 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,331
of 11,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,181
of 250,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#147
of 260 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,794,860 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,057 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 250,645 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 260 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.