↓ Skip to main content

Rituximab for eradicating inhibitors in people with acquired haemophilia A

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Rituximab for eradicating inhibitors in people with acquired haemophilia A
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011907.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yan Zeng, Ruiqing Zhou, Xin Duan, Dan Long

Abstract

Acquired haemophilia A is a rare bleeding disorder caused by the development of specific autoantibodies against coagulation factor VIII. Rituximab may be an alternative approach to the treatment of acquired haemophilia by eradicating FVIII autoantibodies. To assess and summarise the efficacy and adverse effects of rituximab for treating people with acquired haemophilia A. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's trials registers, comprising references identified from comprehensive electronic database searches and handsearches of relevant journals and conference proceedings.Date of last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's trials registers: 01 March 2016. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of rituximab for people with acquired hemophilia A, with no restrictions on gender, age or ethnicity. No trials matching the selection criteria were eligible for inclusion. No trials matching the selection criteria were eligible for inclusion. No randomised clinical trials of rituximab for acquired hemophilia A were found. Thus, based on the highest quality of evidence, we are not able to draw any conclusions or make any recommendations on rituximab for eradicating inhibitors in people with acquired haemophilia A. Given that undertaking randomised controlled trials in this field is a complex task, the authors suggest that, while planning such trials, clinicians treating the disease continue to base their choices on alternative, lower quality sources of evidence. The authors plan, for a future update of this review, to appraise and incorporate any randomised controlled trials, as well as other high-quality non-randomised studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 20%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 4 7%
Other 10 18%
Unknown 13 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 8 15%
Unknown 15 27%
Attention Score in Context

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 23 July 2016.
All research outputs
#20,723,696
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#10,914
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287,342
of 370,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#192
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 370,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.