↓ Skip to main content

Fasting for haemostasis in children with gastrointestinal bleeding

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Fasting for haemostasis in children with gastrointestinal bleeding
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010714.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shuang-Hong Luo, Qin Guo, Guan J Liu, Chaomin Wan

Abstract

Gastrointestinal bleeding refers to loss of blood from any site of the digestive tract. In paediatric clinical practice, it is usually a complaint of children attending the emergency department as a symptom of diseases such as ulcers, gastric or oesophageal varices, gastritis, Mallory-Weiss tears, anorectal fissures, allergic colitis, infectious colitis, intussusception, Henoch-Schonlein purpura, and Meckel's diverticulum; it also occurs with high incidence in critically ill children hospitalised in intensive care units and is caused by stress-induced gastropathy. No matter what the cause of gastrointestinal bleeding, fasting is believed to be necessary due to the fear that eating may affect haemostasis or aggravate bleeding. To assess the effects and safety of fasting for haemostasis in gastrointestinal bleeding in children. We searched EBM Reviews - the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (May 2016), Ovid MEDLINE(R) (1946 to 3 May 2016), EMBASE (1980 to 2016 Week 18), Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) (1978 to 3 May 2016), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to 3 May 2016), VIP Database (1989 to 4 May 2016) and Wanfang Data (1990 to 4 May 2016). We used no restrictions on language or study setting and limited searches in CNKI and Wanfang Data to the medical field. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs in children with gastrointestinal bleeding that compared fasting with feeding. Two review authors independently screened the literature search results, and there were no disagreements. We identified no RCTs or quasi-RCTs that compared the effects and safety of fasting with feeding for haemostasis in children with gastrointestinal bleeding. No study fulfilled the criteria for considering studies for our review. There is currently no information available from RCTs or quasi-RCTs to support or refute the use of fasting for haemostasis in children with gastrointestinal bleeding.

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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 17%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 19 28%

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 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#9,618,935
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,702
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,828
of 264,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#130
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 264,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.