↓ Skip to main content

Recombinant factor VIIa concentrate versus plasma-derived concentrates for treating acute bleeding episodes in people with haemophilia and inhibitors

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 (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Recombinant factor VIIa concentrate versus plasma-derived concentrates for treating acute bleeding episodes in people with haemophilia and inhibitors
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004449.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Davide Matino, Michael Makris, Kerry Dwan, Roberto D'Amico, Alfonso Iorio

Abstract

In people with haemophilia, therapeutic clotting agents might be recognised as a foreign protein and induce anti-factor VIII antibodies, known as 'inhibitors'. Drugs insensitive to such antibodies, either recombinant or plasma-derived, are called factor VIII 'by-passing' agents and used for treatment of bleeding in people with inhibitors. To determine the clinical effectiveness of recombinant factor VIIa concentrate compared to plasma-derived concentrates for treating acute bleeding episodes in people with haemophilia and inhibitors. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Coagulopathies Trials Register which comprises references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Date of the most recent search of the Group's Coagulopathies Trials Register: 23 September 2015. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing recombinant factor VIIa concentrate to human plasma-derived concentrates (high-dose human or recombinant factor VIII or factor IX concentrate; non-activated prothrombin complex concentrates; activated prothrombin complex concentrates) in people with haemophilia. Comparisons with animal-derived products were excluded. Two authors independently assessed the trials (eligibility and risk of bias) and extracted data. No combined meta-analyses were performed due to the unavailability of outcomes and comparisons common to the included trials. A total of 15 trials were identified, two of which (with data for a total of 69 participants) were eligible for analysis. Both trials showed methodological flaws and did not show superiority of one treatment over the other. Both the treatments showed that recombinant factor VIIa and activated prothrombin complex concentrate appeared to have a similar haemostatic effect in both trials, without increasing thromboembolic risk. Based on the separate analysis of the two available randomised trials, recombinant factor VIIa and activated prothrombin complex concentrate were found to be similar in efficacy and safety. However, there is a need for further, well-designed, adequately-powered, randomised controlled trials to assess the relative benefits and risks of using recombinant factor VIIa compared to human plasma-derived concentrates in people with haemophilia with inhibitors. It is advisable that researchers in the field define commonly agreed objective outcome measures in order to enable the pooling of their results, thus increasing the power of comparisons. To date, data could not be combined in a formal meta-analysis. For the same reason reporting concordant and discordant pairs in cross-over trials is recommended.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Ecuador 2 3%
India 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Germany 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 62 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 25%
Student > Master 11 15%
Other 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 48%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 7%
Unspecified 5 7%
Other 15 21%

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 25 December 2015.
All research outputs
#7,070,204
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,580
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#143,509
of 347,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#172
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 347,852 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.