↓ Skip to main content

Nutritional interventions in primary mitochondrial disorders: Developing an evidence base

Overview of attention for article published in Molecular Genetics & Metabolism, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#22 of 2,384)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
6 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 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
Nutritional interventions in primary mitochondrial disorders: Developing an evidence base
Published in
Molecular Genetics & Metabolism, September 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.ymgme.2016.09.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kathryn M. Camp, Danuta Krotoski, Melissa A. Parisi, Katrina A. Gwinn, Bruce H. Cohen, Christine S. Cox, Gregory M. Enns, Marni J. Falk, Amy C. Goldstein, Rashmi Gopal-Srivastava, Gráinne S. Gorman, Stephen P. Hersh, Michio Hirano, Freddie Ann Hoffman, Amel Karaa, Erin L. MacLeod, Robert McFarland, Charles Mohan, Andrew E. Mulberg, Joanne C. Odenkirchen, Sumit Parikh, Patricia J. Rutherford, Shawne K. Suggs-Anderson, W.H. Wilson Tang, Jerry Vockley, Lynne A. Wolfe, Steven Yannicelli, Philip E. Yeske, Paul M. Coates

Abstract

In December 2014, a workshop entitled "Nutritional Interventions in Primary Mitochondrial Disorders: Developing an Evidence Base" was convened at the NIH with the goals of exploring the use of nutritional interventions in primary mitochondrial disorders (PMD) and identifying knowledge gaps regarding their safety and efficacy; identifying research opportunities; and forging collaborations among researchers, clinicians, patient advocacy groups, and federal partners. Sponsors included the NIH, the Wellcome Trust, and the United Mitochondrial Diseases Foundation. Dietary supplements have historically been used in the management of PMD due to their potential benefits and perceived low risk, even though little evidence exists regarding their effectiveness. PMD are rare and clinically, phenotypically, and genetically heterogeneous. Thus patient recruitment for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has proven to be challenging. Only a few RCTs examining dietary supplements, singly or in combination with other vitamins and cofactors, are reported in the literature. Regulatory issues pertaining to the use of dietary supplements as treatment modalities further complicate the research and patient access landscape. As a preface to exploring a research agenda, the workshop included presentations and discussions on what PMD are; how nutritional interventions are used in PMD; challenges and barriers to their use; new technologies and approaches to diagnosis and treatment; research opportunities and resources; and perspectives from patient advocacy, industry, and professional organizations. Seven key areas were identified during the workshop. These areas were: 1) defining the disease, 2) clinical trial design, 3) biomarker selection, 4) mechanistic approaches, 5) challenges in using dietary supplements, 6) standards of clinical care, and 7) collaboration issues. Short- and long-term goals within each of these areas were identified. An example of an overarching goal is the enrollment of all individuals with PMD in a natural history study and a patient registry to enhance research capability. The workshop demonstrates an effective model for fostering and enhancing collaborations among NIH and basic research, clinical, patient, pharmaceutical industry, and regulatory stakeholders in the mitochondrial disease community to address research challenges on the use of dietary supplements in PMD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 162 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 17%
Researcher 23 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Other 10 6%
Other 34 21%
Unknown 32 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 15 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 14 9%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Other 36 22%
Unknown 36 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 21 September 2022.
All research outputs
#801,536
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Molecular Genetics & Metabolism
#22
of 2,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,040
of 328,014 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Molecular Genetics & Metabolism
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,384 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 328,014 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.