↓ Skip to main content

Desmopressin acetate (DDAVP) for preventing and treating acute bleeds during pregnancy in women with congenital bleeding disorders

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Desmopressin acetate (DDAVP) for preventing and treating acute bleeds during pregnancy in women with congenital bleeding disorders
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009824.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laxminarayan Karanth, Ankur Barua, Sachchithanantham Kanagasabai, Sreekumar Nair

Abstract

Congenital bleeding disorders can cause obstetric haemorrhage during pregnancy, labour and following delivery. Desmopressin acetate is found to be an effective drug which can reduce the risk of haemorrhage and can also stop bleeding in certain congenital bleeding disorders. Its use in pregnancy has been controversial. Hence beneficial and adverse effects of desmopressin acetate in these groups of pregnant women should be evaluated.This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2013. To determine the efficacy of desmopressin acetate in preventing and treating acute bleeds during pregnancy in women with congenital bleeding disorders. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Coaguopathies Trials Register comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant and abstract books of conferences proceedings. We also searched for any randomised controlled trials in a registry of ongoing trials and the reference lists of relevant articles and reviews.Date of most recent search: 18 June 2015. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials investigating the efficacy of desmopressin acetate versus tranexamic acid or factor VIII or rFactor VII or fresh frozen plasma in preventing and treating congenital bleeding disorders during pregnancy were eligible. No trials matching the selection criteria were eligible for inclusion. No trials matching the selection criteria were eligible for inclusion. The review did not identify any randomised controlled trials investigating the relative effectiveness of desmopressin acetate for bleeding during pregnancy in women with congenital bleeding disorders. In the absence of high quality evidence, clinicians need to use their clinical judgement and lower level evidence (e.g. from observational trials) to decide whether or not to treat women with congenital bleeding disorders with desmopressin acetate.Given the ethical considerations, future randomised controlled trials are unlikely. However, other high quality controlled studies (such as risk allocation designs, sequential design, parallel cohort design) to investigate the risks and benefits of using desmopressin acetate in this population are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 12%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 38%
Psychology 4 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 5 15%

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 01 April 2016.
All research outputs
#10,024,056
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,756
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#184,896
of 264,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#140
of 150 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 264,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 150 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.