↓ Skip to main content

Early versus delayed erythropoietin for the anaemia of end-stage kidney disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
96 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Early versus delayed erythropoietin for the anaemia of end-stage kidney disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011122.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jorge Coronado Daza, Arturo J Martí-Carvajal, Amaury Ariza García, Joaquín Rodelo Ceballos, Nancy Yomayusa González, Carol Páez-Canro, César Loza Munárriz, Gerard Urrútia

Abstract

Anaemia is a common complication in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and mainly develops as a consequence of relative erythropoietin (EPO) deficiency. Anaemia develops early in the course of disease and peaks among people with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Many types of EPO - also called erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) - are used to treat anaemia in people with ESKD.ESAs have changed treatment of severe anaemia among people with CKD by relieving symptoms and avoiding complications associated with blood transfusion. However, no benefits have been found in relation to mortality rates and non-cardiac fatal events, except quality of life. Moreover, a relationship between ESA use and increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in patients with CKD has been reported in studies with fully correcting anaemia comparing with partial anaemia correction. Until 2012, guidelines recommended commencing ESA treatment when haemoglobin was less than 11 g/dL; the current recommendation is EPO commencement when haemoglobin is between 9 and 10 g/dL. However, advantages in commencing therapy when haemoglobin levels are greater than 10 g/dL but less than 11 g/dL remain unknown, especially among older people whose life expectancy is limited, but in whom EPO therapy may improve quality of life. To assess the clinical benefits and harms of early versus delayed EPO for anaemia in patients with ESKD undergoing haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 8 July 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating at the clinical benefits and harms of early versus delayed EPO for anaemia in patients with ESKD undergoing haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. Studies comparing EPO with another EPO, placebo or no treatment were eligible for inclusion. It was planned that two authors would independently extract data from included studies and assess risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For dichotomous outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, overall myocardial infarction, overall stroke, vascular access thrombosis, adverse effects of treatment, transfusion), we planned to use the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We planned to calculate the mean difference (MD) and CI 95% for continuous data (haemoglobin level) and the standardised mean difference (SMD) with CI 95% for quality of life if different scales had been used. Literature searches yielded 1910 records, of these 1534 were screened after duplicates removed, of which 1376 were excluded following title and abstract assessment. We assessed 158 full text records and identified 18 studies (66 records) that were potentially eligible for inclusion. However, none matched our inclusion criteria and were excluded. We found no evidence to assess the benefits and harms of early versus delayed EPO for the anaemia of ESKD.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 96 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 20%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 21 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 18%
Psychology 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 23 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,230,453
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,685
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,394
of 311,110 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#174
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 311,110 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.