↓ Skip to main content

Anti-inflammatory treatment for carditis in acute rheumatic fever

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

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
Anti-inflammatory treatment for carditis in acute rheumatic fever
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003176.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antoinette Cilliers, Alma J Adler, Haroon Saloojee

Abstract

Rheumatic heart disease remains an important cause of acquired heart disease in developing countries. Although prevention of rheumatic fever and management of recurrences have been well established, optimal management of active rheumatic carditis remains unclear. This is an update of a review published in 2003, and previously updated in 2009 and 2012. To assess the effects, both harmful and beneficial, of anti-inflammatory agents such as aspirin, corticosteroids and other drugs in preventing or reducing further valvular damage in patients with acute rheumatic fever. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2013, Issue 9 of 12), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1948 to 2013 October Week 1), EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to 2013 Week 41) and Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) (1982 to 17 October 2013). We last searched Index Medicus (1950 to April 2001) in 2001. We checked reference lists of identified studies and applied no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials comparing anti-inflammatory agents (e.g. aspirin, steroids, immunoglobulins, pentoxifylline) versus placebo or controls, or comparing any of the anti-inflammatory agents versus one another, in adults and children with acute rheumatic fever diagnosed according to Jones, or modified Jones, criteria. The presence of cardiac disease one year after treatment was the major outcome criterion selected. Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the methodology outlined in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration were used. No new studies were included in this update. Eight randomised controlled trials involving 996 people were selected for inclusion in the review. Researchers compared several steroidal agents such as corticotrophin, cortisone, hydrocortisone, dexamethasone, prednisone and intravenous immunoglobulin versus aspirin, placebo or no treatment. Six trials were conducted between 1950 and 1965; one was done in 1990 and the final study was published in 2001. Overall there were no observed significant differences in risk of cardiac disease at one year between corticosteroid-treated and aspirin-treated groups (six studies, 907 participants, risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.15). Similarly, use of prednisone (two studies, 212 participants, risk ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 2.45) compared with aspirin did not reduce the risk of heart disease after one year. Investigators in five studies did not report adverse events. The three studies reporting on adverse events reported substantial adverse events. However, all results should be interpreted with caution because of the age of the studies and the substantial risk of bias. Little evidence of benefit was found when corticosteroids or intravenous immunoglobulins were used to reduce the risk of heart valve lesions in patients with acute rheumatic fever. The antiquity of most of the trials restricted adequate statistical analysis of the data and acceptable assessment of clinical outcomes by current standards. In addition, risk of bias was substantial, so results should be viewed with caution. New randomised controlled trials in patients with acute rheumatic fever are warranted to assess the effects of corticosteroids such as oral prednisone and intravenous methylprednisolone and the effects of other new anti-inflammatory agents. Advances in echocardiography will allow more objective and precise assessments of cardiac outcomes.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 28 22%
Researcher 15 12%
Other 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 7%
Other 32 25%
Unknown 22 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 26 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 January 2016.
All research outputs
#11,143,455
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,923
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,459
of 331,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#178
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 331,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.