↓ Skip to main content

Extracorporeal photopheresis versus alternative treatment for chronic graft-versus-host disease after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in paediatric patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Extracorporeal photopheresis versus alternative treatment for chronic graft-versus-host disease after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation in paediatric patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009898.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcus Weitz, Brigitte Strahm, Joerg J Meerpohl, Maria Schmidt, Dirk Bassler

Abstract

Chronic graft-versus-host disease (GvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation occurring in 6% to 65% of the recipients. Currently, the therapeutic mainstay for chronic GvHD are corticosteroids that are frequently combined with other immunosuppressive agents in people with steroid-refractory manifestations. There is no established standard treatment for steroid-refractory chronic GvHD. The therapeutic options for these patients include extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP), an immunomodulatory treatment that involves ex vivo collection of mononuclear cells from peripheral blood, exposure to the photoactive agent 8-methoxypsoralen, ultraviolet radiation and re-infusion of the processed cell product. The mechanisms of action of ECP are not completely understood. This is an updated version of a Cochrane review first published in 2014. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of ECP for the management of chronic GvHD in children and adolescents after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 9, 2015), MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from their inception to 23 September 2015. We searched the reference lists of potentially relevant studies without any language restriction. We searched eight trial registers and five conference proceedings on 29 September 2015. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ECP with or without alternative treatment versus alternative treatment alone in paediatric patients with chronic GvHD after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Two review authors independently performed the study selection. We resolved disagreements in the selection of trials by consultation with a third review author. No additional studies were identified in this 2015 review update, in total leading to no studies meeting the criteria for inclusion in this review. The efficacy of ECP in the treatment of chronic GvHD in paediatric patients after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation based on RCTs cannot be evaluated since the original version of this review and the first review update found no RCTs. Current recommendations are based on retrospective or observational studies only. Thus, ideally, ECP should be applied in the context of controlled trials only. However, performing RCTs in this patient population will be challenging due to the limited number of patients, the variable disease presentation and the lack of well-defined response criteria. International collaboration, multicentre trials and appropriate funding for such trials will be needed. If treatment decisions based on clinical data are made in favour of ECP, patients should be carefully monitored for beneficial and harmful effects. In addition, efforts should be made to share this information with other clinicians, for example by setting up registries for paediatric patients that are treated with ECP.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 62 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 29%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Psychology 3 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 9 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 May 2019.
All research outputs
#1,023,450
of 13,722,218 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,089
of 10,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,124
of 361,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#85
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,722,218 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 361,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 213 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.