↓ Skip to main content

Drugs for preventing red blood cell dehydration in people with sickle cell disease

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Drugs for preventing red blood cell dehydration in people with sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003426.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Srikanth Nagalla, Samir K Ballas

Abstract

Sickle cell disease is an inherited disorder of hemoglobin, resulting in abnormal red blood cells. These are rigid and may block blood vessels leading to acute painful crises and other complications. Recent research has focused on therapies to rehydrate the sickled cells by reducing the loss of water and ions from them. Little is known about the effectiveness and safety of such drugs. This is an updated version of a previously published review. To assess the relative risks and benefits of drugs to rehydrate sickled red blood cells. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register.Last search of the Group's Trials Register: 28 November 2015. Randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials of drugs to rehydrate sickled red blood cells compared to placebo or an alternative treatment. Both authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed study quality and extracted data. Of the 51 studies identified, three met the inclusion criteria. The first study tested the effectiveness of zinc sulphate to prevent sickle cell-related crises in a total of 145 participants and showed a significant reduction in painful crises over one and a half years, mean difference -2.83 (95% confidence interval -3.51 to -2.15). However, analysis was restricted due to limited statistical data. Changes to red cell parameters and blood counts were inconsistent. No serious adverse events were noted in the study.The second study was a Phase II dose-finding study of senicapoc (a Gardos channel blocker) compared to placebo. Compared to the placebo group the high dose senicapoc showed significant improvement in change in hemoglobin level, number and proportion of dense red blood cells, red blood cell count and indices and hematocrit. The results with low-dose senicapoc were similar to the high-dose senicapoc group but of lesser magnitude. There was no difference in the frequency of painful crises between the three groups. A subsequent Phase III study of senicapoc was terminated early since there was no difference observed between the treatment and control groups in the primary end point of painful crises. While the results of zinc for reducing sickle-related crises are encouraging, larger and longer-term multicenter studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness of this therapy for people with sickle cell disease.While the Phase II and the prematurely terminated phase III studies of senicapoc showed that the drug improved red cell survival (depending on dose), this did not lead to fewer painful 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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 42 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 27%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 14%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 61%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 14%
Engineering 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 October 2017.
All research outputs
#6,509,631
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,161
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#99,510
of 268,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#130
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 268,309 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 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.