↓ Skip to main content

Role of vasopressin and terlipressin in refractory shock compared to conventional therapy in the neonatal and pediatric population: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Role of vasopressin and terlipressin in refractory shock compared to conventional therapy in the neonatal and pediatric population: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis
Published in
Critical Care, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1589-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Reem Masarwa, Gideon Paret, Amichai Perlman, Shimon Reif, Bruria Hirsh Raccah, Ilan Matok

Abstract

Vasopressin (AVP) and terlipressin (TP) have been used as last-line therapy in refractory shock in children. However, the efficacy and safety profiles of AVP and TP have not been determined in pediatric refractory shock of different origins. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the addition of AVP/TP therapy in pediatric refractory shock of all causes compared to conventional therapy with fluid resuscitation and vasopressor and inotropic therapy. We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) comparing AVP and TP to conventional therapy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to February 2016. The systematic review included all reports of AVP/TP use in the pediatric population. Reports of clinical trials were pooled using random-effects models and TSA. Main outcomes were mortality and tissue ischemia. Three randomized controlled trials and five "before-and-after clinical" trials (without comparator) met the inclusion criteria. Among 224 neonates and children (aged 0 to 18 years) with refractory shock, 152 received therapy with AVP or TP. Pooled analyses showed no association between AVP/TP treatment and mortality (relative risk (RR),1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.71-2.00), length of stay in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) (mean difference (MD), -3.58 days; 95% CI, -9.05 to 1.83), and tissue ischemia (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.47-4.62). In TSA, no significant effect on mortality and risk for developing tissue ischemia was observed with AVP/TP therapy. Our results emphasize the lack of observed benefit for AVP/TP in terms of mortality and length of stay in the PICU, and suggest an increased risk for ischemic events. Our TSA suggests that further large studies are necessary to demonstrate and establish benefits of AVP/TP in children. PROSPERO registry: CRD42016035872.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 72 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 17 23%
Unknown 19 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 21 29%
Attention Score in Context

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 07 February 2019.
All research outputs
#3,753,749
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,848
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,252
of 421,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#41
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 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 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 421,665 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.