↓ Skip to main content

Protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial of recipient remote ischaemic preconditioning in orthotopic liver transplantation (RIPCOLT trial)

Overview of attention for article published in Transplantation Research, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial of recipient remote ischaemic preconditioning in orthotopic liver transplantation (RIPCOLT trial)
Published in
Transplantation Research, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13737-016-0033-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francis P. Robertson, Rup Goswami, Graham P. Wright, Barry Fuller, Brian R. Davidson

Abstract

Ischaemic reperfusion (IR) injury is a major cause of graft loss, morbidity and mortality following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Demand for liver transplantation has resulted in increasing use of marginal grafts that are more prone to IR injury. Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) reduces IR injury in experimental models, but recipient RIPC has not been evaluated clinically. A single-centre double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) is planned to test the hypothesis that recipient RIPC will reduce IR injury. RIPC will be performed following recipient anaesthetic induction but prior to skin incision. The protocol involves 3 cycles of 5 min of lower limb occlusion with a pneumatic tourniquet inflated to 200 mmHg alternating with 5 min of reperfusion. In the control group, the sham will involve the cuff being placed on the thigh but without being inflated. The primary endpoint is ability to recruit patients to the trial and safety of RIPC. The key secondary endpoint is a reduction in serum aspartate transferase levels on the third post-operative day. RIPC is a promising strategy to reduce IR injury in liver transplant recipients as there is a clear experimental basis, and the intervention is both inexpensive and easy to perform. This is the first trial to investigate RIPC in liver transplant recipients. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00796588.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 16%
Researcher 4 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Lecturer 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 48%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 32%
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 17 June 2016.
All research outputs
#17,796,099
of 22,860,626 outputs
Outputs from Transplantation Research
#27
of 39 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,609
of 301,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Transplantation Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,860,626 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 39 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one scored the same or higher as 12 of them.
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 301,073 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them