| Title |
A randomized clinical trial of lithium in multiple system atrophy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Neurology, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00415-012-6655-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesco Saccà, Angela Marsili, Mario Quarantelli, Vincenzo Brescia Morra, Arturo Brunetti, Rosa Carbone, Chiara Pane, Giorgia Puorro, Cinzia Valeria Russo, Elena Salvatore, Tecla Tucci, Giuseppe Michele, Alessandro Filla |
| Abstract |
The aim of our study was to test the safety and tolerability of lithium in multiple system atrophy (MSA). The study was randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blind. The primary endpoint of the study was safety and tolerability. An interim analysis, performed 1 year after the first patient was randomized, showed a higher proportion of trial abandon (P < 0.01) and a higher number of adverse events (P < 0.02) in the lithium group. The trial was stopped by the Data Monitoring Committee. Overall, lithium was not well tolerated, and we do not encourage future studies with lithium in MSA patients. |
X Demographics
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| Brazil | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 19% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 24% |
| Unknown | 5 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 43% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
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 20 October 2022.
All research outputs
#15,322,694
of 23,563,389 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Neurology
#3,224
of 4,602 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#106,093
of 170,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Neurology
#27
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,563,389 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 4,602 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 170,910 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 46 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.