↓ 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 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 28%
Librarian 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 11%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 7 19%

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
#9,676,726
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,720
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,317
of 267,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#93
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 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 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. 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 267,104 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 105 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.