↓ Skip to main content

Intravenous immunoglobulin for postpolio syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neurology, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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
Intravenous immunoglobulin for postpolio syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Neurology, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12883-015-0301-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yao-Hsien Huang, Hung-Chou Chen, Kuang-Wei Huang, Po-Chih Chen, Chaur-Jong Hu, Chin-Piao Tsai, Ka-Wai Tam, Yi-Chun Kuan

Abstract

Postpolio syndrome (PPS) is characterized by progressive disabilities that develop decades after prior paralytic poliomyelitis. Because chronic inflammation may be the process underlying the development of PPS, immunomodulatory management, such as intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) administration, may be beneficial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective studies that evaluated the efficacy of IVIg in managing PPS. Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched for articles on PPS published before December 2014. The primary outcomes were pain severity, fatigue scores, and muscle strength. The secondary outcomes were physical performance, quality of life (QoL), and cytokine expression levels. We identified 3 RCTs involving 241 patients and 5 prospective studies involving 267 patients. The meta-analysis of pain severity (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.51 to 0.47), fatigue scores (WMD = 0.28, 95% CI -0.56 to 1.12), and muscle strength revealed no significant differences between the IVIg and the placebo group. Regarding QoL, the RCTs yielded controversial outcomes, with improvement in only certain domains of the Short Form 36 (SF-36). Moreover, one prospective study reported significant improvement on SF-36, particularly in patients aged younger than 65 years, those with paresis of the lower limbs, and high pain intensity. The present review indicated that IVIg is unlikely to produce significant improvements in pain, fatigue, or muscle strength. Thus, routinely administering IVIg to patients with PPS is not recommended based on RCTs. However, a potential effect in younger patients with lower limbs weakness and intense pain requires confirmation from further well-structured trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 70 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Other 4 6%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 17%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 21 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#5,219,978
of 24,601,689 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neurology
#680
of 2,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,528
of 267,754 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neurology
#19
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,601,689 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 267,754 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.