↓ Skip to main content

Extracorporeal photopheresis versus standard treatment for acute 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 (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 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 standard treatment for acute 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.cd009759.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Acute graft-versus-host disease (aGvHD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) occurring in 8% to 59% of the recipients. Currently, the therapeutic mainstay for aGvHD is corticosteroids. However, there is no established standard treatment for steroid-refractory aGvHD. Extracorporeal photopheresis (ECP) is a type of immunomodulatory method amongst different therapeutic options that involves ex vivo collection of peripheral mononuclear cells, exposure to the photoactive agent 8-methoxypsoralen and ultraviolet-A radiation, and re-infusion of these treated blood cells to the patient. 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 aGvHD in children and adolescents after HSCT. We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 9, 2015), MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE (Ovid) databases from their inception to 23 September 2015. We searched the reference lists of potentially relevant studies without any language restrictions. We searched eight trial registers and four conference proceedings on 29 September 2015. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ECP with or without standard treatment versus standard treatment alone in paediatric patients with aGvHD after HSCT. Two review authors independently performed the study selection. We resolved disagreement in the selection of trials by consultation with a third review author. We identified no additional studies in the 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 aGvHD in paediatric patients after HSCT is unknown and its use should be restricted within the context of RCTs. Such studies should address a comparison of ECP alone or in combination with standard treatment versus standard treatment alone. The 2015 review update brought about no additions to these conclusions.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 17%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 10%
Other 7 9%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 15 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 20 26%

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 18 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,194,665
of 15,277,053 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,311
of 11,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,544
of 367,523 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#85
of 213 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,277,053 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 11,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 367,523 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 90% 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.