↓ Skip to main content

Piracetam for reducing the incidence of painful sickle cell disease crises

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Piracetam for reducing the incidence of painful sickle cell disease crises
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006111.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amani Al Hajeri, Zbys Fedorowicz

Abstract

Sickle cell disease is one of the most common genetic disorders. Sickle cell crises in which irregular and dehydrated cells contribute to blocking of blood vessels are characterised by episodes of pain. Treatment is mainly supportive and symptomatic. In vitro studies with piracetam indicate that it has the potential for inhibition and a reversal of the process of sickling of erythrocytes. This is an update of a previously published Cochrane review. To assess the effectiveness of piracetam for reducing the incidence of painful sickle cell disease crises. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register which comprises of references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and abstract books of conference proceedings.Last search of the Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 21 September 2015. Randomised controlled trials comparing orally administered piracetam to placebo or standard care in people, of all ages and both sexes, with sickle cell disease. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Trial authors were contacted for additional information. Adverse effects data were collected from the trials. Three trials involving 169 participants were included in the review. A limited amount of data addressing some of the primary and some of the secondary outcomes were provided, but data were incomplete and based on un-validated assumptions used in the evaluation of outcomes. One trial reported a reduction in the number of pain crises and their severity with active intervention than placebo but presented no data to confirm these results. A second trial presented a monthly global pain score based on the number of sickle cell crises and severity of pain but included no separate data for these primary outcomes. Although there was no significant difference between the piracetam and placebo periods for the number of days of hospitalisation (P = 0.87) in one trial, inconsistencies in the criteria necessary for hospitalisation during sickle crises did not permit accurate conclusions to be drawn. Two of the trials reported participant satisfaction with piracetam but provided no details as to how this satisfaction had been assessed. There were no reports of toxicity or adverse effects with piracetam other than one participant who experienced dizziness. The small number of included trials and their poor methodological quality provided insufficient reliable evidence to support the routine use of this medication for preventing the incidence of painful sickle cell disease crises.We will continue to run searches to identify any potentially relevant trials; however, we do not plan to update other sections of the review until new trials are published.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 79 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 16%
Unspecified 12 15%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Other 20 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 33%
Unspecified 18 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 14%
Psychology 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 5%
Other 16 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 28 September 2017.
All research outputs
#2,922,875
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,266
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,996
of 335,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#103
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 335,399 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.