The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 Xuebijing Injection Combined With Ulinastatin as Adjunctive Therapy on Sepsis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pharmacology, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphar.2018.00743 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Guochao Chen, Yanyan Gao, Yue Jiang, Fei Yang, Shuangshuang Li, Di Tan, Qun Ma |
| Abstract |
Background: Xuebijing injection (XBJ), transforming from Xuefuzhuyu decoction, is the only Chinese medicine injection approved for sepsis. XBJ and ulinastatin (UTI) combination therapy is supposed to be beneficial for sepsis patients. To fill the gap between the lack of evidence for the efficacy of combination therapy and its increasing application among patients, an extensive meta-analysis was performed. Methods: Eight databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing XBJ plus UTI with UTI alone in treating sepsis from inception to February 5, 2018. Data extraction and methodological quality assessment of the included RCTs were implemented by two investigators independently. All data were synthesized and analyzed utilizing Review Manager 5.3. Results: Seventeen RCTs with a total of 1,247 participants corresponded with the inclusion criteria of our study. The findings reflected that in comparison to single UTI, XBJ and UTI combination therapy could significantly lower 28-day mortality (RR = 0.54, 95% CI [0.39, 0.73], P < 0.0001), shorten duration of mechanical ventilation (SMD = -1.13, 95% CI [-1.30, -0.95], P < 0.00001), reduce length of ICU stay (SMD = -0.84, 95% CI [-1.00, -0.67], P < 0.00001), and decrease APACHE II score (SMD = -1.09, 95% CI [-1.49, -0.69], P < 0.00001). Additionally, XBJ plus UTI had superiority over single UTI in lowering PCT levels (SMD = -1.61, 95% CI [-2.23, -0.98], P < 0.00001), and improving inflammatory cytokines-IL-6 and TNF-α levels (SMD = -1.45, 95% CI [-1.71, -1.19], P < 0.00001; SMD = -1.11, 95% CI [-1.42, -0.80], P < 0.00001). Moreover, CRP, hs-CRP, and LPS levels were remarkably reduced by XBJ plus UTI compared with UTI alone (SMD = -1.50, 95% CI [-2.00, -1.00], P < 0.00001; SMD = -1.31, 95% CI [-1.70, -0.93], P < 0.00001; SMD = -1.17, 95% CI [-1.42, -0.92], P < 0.00001). Three studies involving 14 patients reported the occurrences of adverse events. Conclusions: Comparing with UTI alone, XBJ and UTI combination therapy appeared to be more effective for sepsis. However, owing to the limitations of this meta-analysis, additional RCTs with higher-quality and more rigorous design are needed to confirm our findings. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 3 | 25% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 17% |
| Researcher | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 42% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 50% |
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 07 August 2018.
All research outputs
#18,646,262
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#8,443
of 16,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,804
of 329,805 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#210
of 398 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 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 16,458 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 329,805 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 398 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.