↓ Skip to main content

Beta-blockers for congestive heart failure in children

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 (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 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
Beta-blockers for congestive heart failure in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007037.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samer Alabed, Ammar Sabouni, Suleiman Al Dakhoul, Yamama Bdaiwi, Anne-Kristina Frobel-Mercier

Abstract

Beta-blockers are an essential part of standard therapy in adult congestive heart failure and therefore, are expected to be beneficial in children. However, congestive heart failure in children differs from that in adults in terms of characteristics, aetiology, and drug clearance. Therefore, paediatric needs must be specifically investigated. This is an update of a Cochrane review previously published in 2009. To assess the effect of beta-adrenoceptor-blockers (beta-blockers) in children with congestive heart failure. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS up to November 2015. Bibliographies of identified studies were checked. No language restrictions were applied. Randomised, controlled, clinical trials investigating the effect of beta-blocker therapy on paediatric congestive heart failure. Two review authors independently extracted and assessed data from the included trials. We identified four new studies for the review update; the review now includes seven studies with 420 participants. Four small studies with 20 to 30 children each, and two larger studies of 80 children each, showed an improvement of congestive heart failure with beta-blocker therapy. A larger study with 161 participants showed no evidence of benefit over placebo in a composite measure of heart failure outcomes. The included studies showed no significant difference in mortality or heart transplantation rates between the beta-blocker and control groups. No significant adverse events were reported with beta-blockers, apart from one episode of complete heart block. A meta-analysis of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and fractional shortening (LVFS) data showed a very small improvement with beta-blockers.However, there were vast differences in the age, age range, and health of the participants (aetiology and severity of heart failure; heterogeneity of diagnoses and co-morbidities); there was a range of treatments across studies (choice of beta-blocker, dosing, duration of treatment); and a lack of standardised methods and outcome measures. Therefore, the primary outcomes could not be pooled in meta-analyses. There is not enough evidence to support or discourage the use of beta-blockers in children with congestive heart failure, or to propose a paediatric dosing scheme. However, the sparse data available suggested that children with congestive heart failure might benefit from beta-blocker treatment. Further investigations in clearly defined populations with standardised methodology are required to establish guidelines for therapy. Pharmacokinetic investigations of beta-blockers in children are also required to provide effective dosing in future trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 2%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 128 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 16%
Student > Master 21 16%
Researcher 16 12%
Other 15 11%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 26 20%
Unknown 24 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Philosophy 2 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 28 21%

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 04 August 2018.
All research outputs
#1,375,456
of 13,785,324 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,893
of 10,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,082
of 338,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#89
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,785,324 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,744 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 63% 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 338,013 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 206 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 56% of its contemporaries.