↓ Skip to main content

Recombinant human erythropoietin versus placebo or no treatment for the anaemia of chronic kidney disease in people not requiring dialysis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 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
Recombinant human erythropoietin versus placebo or no treatment for the anaemia of chronic kidney disease in people not requiring dialysis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003266.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

June D Cody, Elisabeth M Hodson

Abstract

Treatment with recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) in dialysis patients has been shown to be highly effective in terms of correcting anaemia and improving quality of life. There is debate concerning the benefits of rHuEPO use in predialysis patients which may accelerate the deterioration of kidney function. However the opposing view is that if rHuEPO is as effective in predialysis patients, improving the patient's sense of well-being may result in the onset of dialysis being delayed. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2005. The objective of this review was to ascertain the effects of rHuEPO treatment in predialysis patients primarily in terms of the timing of the onset of dialysis; but also that predialysis rHuEPO: 1) corrects haemoglobin/haematocrit (markers of anaemia); 2) improves quality of life; and 3) is not associated with an increased incidence of adverse events such as hastening of the onset of dialysis, increased hypertension, clotting of arterio-venous fistulae or seizures. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register (up to 29 June 2015) through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs comparing the use of rHuEPO with no treatment or placebo in predialysis patients. Only published data were used. Quality assessment was performed by two assessors independently. Data were abstracted by a single author onto a standard form, a sample of which was checked by another author. Results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Nineteen studies (enrolling 993 participants) were included. Due to the age of the included studies (most performed prior to 2000) the risk of bias was judged to be unclear in the majority of the studies for most of the domains. There was an improvement in haemoglobin (MD 1.90 gm/L, 95% CI -2.34 to -1.47) and haematocrit (MD 9.85%, 95% CI 8.35 to 11.34) with treatment and a decrease in the number of patients requiring blood transfusions (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.83). The data from studies reporting quality of life or exercise capacity demonstrated an improvement in the treatment group. Most of the measures of progression of kidney disease showed no statistically significant difference. No significant increase in adverse events was identified. Treatment with rHuEPO in predialysis patients corrects anaemia, avoids the requirement for blood transfusions and also improves quality of life and exercise capacity. We were unable to assess the effects of rHuEPO on progression of kidney disease, delay in the onset of dialysis or adverse events. Based on the current evidence, decisions on the putative benefits in terms of quality of life are worth the extra costs of predialysis rHuEPO need careful evaluation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 108 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 21%
Student > Bachelor 20 18%
Researcher 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 19 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 21 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 29 January 2016.
All research outputs
#1,142,001
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,373
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,818
of 331,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#76
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 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 331,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 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 58% of its contemporaries.