| Title |
Safety and efficacy of the perioperative administration of recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide (rhBNP): a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s143247 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ping Hua, Jianyang Liu, Jun Tao, Xifeng Lin, Rongjun Zou, Dingwen Zhang, Songran Yang |
| Abstract |
Retrospective studies and a meta-analysis were performed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the perioperative administration of recombinant human brain natriuretic peptide (rhBNP) during cardiac surgery under extracorporeal circulation. Computerized literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, and WANFANG to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to the perioperative administration of rhBNP during cardiac surgery starting from the database inception until December 2016. Two researchers independently performed study screening, information extraction, and quality evaluation according to the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. A total of 12 studies were analyzed, including 12 RCTs and 727 patients. The meta-analysis results indicated that the perioperative administration of rhBNP could reduce the occurrence rate of postoperative complications, length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of hospital stay, and serum creatinine (Scr) levels, and increase the 24-hour urine volume; however, it did not affect the postoperative mortality rate. The perioperative administration of rhBNP during cardiac surgery was safe and effective, and could improve the prognosis of the patients. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 4 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 55% |
| Materials Science | 1 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#810
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#270,656
of 448,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#20
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 448,849 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 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.