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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Efficacy and Safety of Cyclosporine in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pharmacology, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphar.2018.00238 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Firdaus A. Rahman, Siti S. Abdullah, Wan Zanariah W. A. Manan, Loh Teng-Hern Tan, Chin-Fen Neoh, Long Chiau Ming, Kok-Gan Chan, Learn-Han Lee, Bey-Hing Goh, Shahrzad Salmasi, David Bin-Chia Wu, Tahir M. Khan |
| Abstract |
There are various studies that have addressed the use of Cyclosporine among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, to date there is hardly any concise and systematically structured evidence that debate on the efficacy and safety of Cyclosporine in AMI patients. The aim of this review is to systematically summarize the overall evidence from published trials, and to conduct a meta-analysis in order to determine the efficacy and safety of Cyclosporine vs. placebo or control among patients with AMI. All randomized control trial (RCT) published in English language from January 2000 to August 2017 were included for the systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of six RCTs met the inclusion and were hence included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Based on the performed meta-analysis, no significant difference was found between Cyclosporine and placebo in terms of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement (mean difference 1.88; 95% CI -0.99 to 4.74; P = 0.2), mortality rate (OR 1.01; 95% Cl 0.60 to 1.67, P = 0.98) and recurrent MI occurrence (OR 0.65; 95% Cl 0.29 to 1.45, P = 0.29), with no evidence of heterogeneity, when given to patients with AMI. Cyclosporine also did not significantly lessen the rate of rehospitalisation in AMI patients when compared to placebo (OR 0.91; 95% Cl 0.58 to 1.42, P = 0.68), with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 46%). There was also no significant improvement in heart failure events between Cyclosporine and placebo in AMI patients (OR 0.63; 95% Cl 0.31 to 1.29, P = 0.21; I2 = 80%). No serious adverse events were reported in Cyclosporine group across all studies suggesting that Cyclosporine is well tolerated when given to patients with AMI. The use of Cyclosporine in this group of patients, however, did not result in better clinical outcomes vs. placebo at improving LVEF, mortality rate, recurrent MI, rehospitalisation and heart failure event. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 18% |
| Canada | 2 | 12% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Japan | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
| Austria | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 88% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 11% |
| Librarian | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 11% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 26% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 10 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 16 January 2020.
All research outputs
#3,465,449
of 24,619,469 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#1,626
of 18,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,889
of 333,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#40
of 393 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,619,469 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 18,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
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 333,343 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 393 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.