↓ Skip to main content

Vitamin K for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver diseases

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Vitamin K for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with acute or chronic liver diseases
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004792.pub5
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. Several treatments are used for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases. One of them is vitamin K administration, but it is not known whether it benefits or harms people with acute or chronic liver disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. This is an update of this Cochrane review. To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin K for people with acute or chronic liver disease and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Controlled Trials Register (February 2015), the 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), and LILACS (1982 to 25 February 2015). We sought additional randomised trials from two registries of clinical trials: the World Health Organization Clinical Trials Search Portal and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials. We looked through the reference lists of the retrieved publications and review articles. Randomised clinical trials irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status for assessment of benefits and harms. We considered observational studies for assessment of harms only. \We aimed to summarise data from randomised clinical trials using Standard Cochrane methodology and assess them according to the GRADE approach. We found no randomised trials on vitamin K for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases assessing benefits and harms of the intervention. We identified no quasi-randomised studies, historically controlled studies, or observational studies assessing harms. This updated review found no randomised clinical trials of vitamin K for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases. The benefits and harms of vitamin K need to be tested in randomised clinical trials. Until randomised clinical trials are conducted to assess the trade-off between benefits and harms, we cannot recommend or refute the use of vitamin K for upper gastrointestinal bleeding in people with liver diseases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 63 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 22%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 15%
Other 7 10%
Unspecified 6 9%
Other 18 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 60%
Unspecified 9 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 8 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 16 January 2017.
All research outputs
#3,177,173
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,689
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,576
of 275,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#179
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
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 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 275,511 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.