↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Review of the rational use and adverse reactions to human serum albumin in the People’s Republic of China

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Review of the rational use and adverse reactions to human serum albumin in the People’s Republic of China
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, November 2013
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s53484
Pubmed ID
Authors

Feng Xu, Ting Zhou, Saihua Lu, Xiufeng Liu, Ye Zhang

Abstract

Human serum albumin (HSA) is an ideal natural colloid that has been widely used in clinical practice for supplemental albumin or as a plasma substitute during therapeutic plasma exchanges to redress hypoproteinemia. However, a paucity of well-designed clinical trials, a lack of a clear cut survival benefit, and frequent case reports of adverse drug reaction (ADR) make the use of HSA controversial. This study aims to review and to comment on the reported ADRs of HSA in the People's Republic of China, so as to provide the basis for rational HSA use in clinical settings. Data on the ADR case reports from HSA administration between January 1990 and December 2012 available from the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, Wanfang data (WF), and Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM) were reviewed. The reasons for using HSA, the types of ADRs, the causality of ADRs and the rationality for HSA administration were extracted and analyzed. In total, 61 cases of ADR reports were identified of which the primary disease of patients using HSA was malignant tumor (34.42%). The primary ADR was anaphylaxis (59.02%). Of the 61 cases, 30 were caused by irrational use of HSA. The most common irrational use was off-label use (56.67%), followed by inappropriate infusion rate. Therefore, we conclude that to avoid the occurrence of ADRs, guidelines for using HSA are needed to guarantee its rational use and HSA should be used strictly according to these guidelines. In addition, medical staff, including clinical pharmacists and nurses, should pay more attention to the patients who inject HSA to ensure its safe use in the clinic.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Romania 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 5 16%
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Other 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 4 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 32%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Chemistry 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 19%

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 28 November 2013.
All research outputs
#3,563,750
of 4,507,509 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#356
of 422 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,055
of 121,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#33
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 422 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 121,094 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.