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 |
Is N-acetylcysteine effective in treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019? A meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of the Chinese Medical Association, January 2023
|
| DOI | 10.1097/jcma.0000000000000869 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chih-Hao Chen, Kai-Feng Hung, Chii-Yuan Huang, Jing-Li Leong, Yuan-Chia Chu, Chun-Yu Chang, Mong-Lien Wang, Shih-Hwa Chiou, Yen-Fu Cheng |
| Abstract |
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a global pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus type 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It has brought tremendous challenges to public health and medical systems around the world. The current strategy for drug repurposing has accumulated some evidence on the use of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in treating patients with COVID-19. However, the evidence remains debated. We performed the systematic review and meta-analysis that complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Five databases and reference lists were searched from inception to May 14, 2022. Studies evaluating the efficacy of NAC in treating patients with COVID-19 were regarded as eligible. The review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42022332791). Of 778 records identified from the preliminary search, four studies were enrolled in the final qualitative review and quantitative meta-analysis. A total of 355 patients were allocated into the NAC group and the control group. The evaluated outcomes included intubation rate, improvement, duration of intensive unit stay and hospital stay and mortality. The pooled results showed nonsignificant differences in intubation rate (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.16 to 1.89; P=.34; I2=75%), improvement of oxygenation (MD, 80.84; 95% CI, -38.16 to 199.84; p=.18; I2=98%), ICU stay (MD, -0.74; 95 % CI, -3.19 to 1.71; p=.55; I2=95%), hospital stay (MD, -1.05; 95% CI, - 3.02 to 0.92; p=.30; I2=90%) and mortality (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.23 to 1.45; p=.24; I2=54%). Subsequent trial sequential analysis showed conclusive nonsignificant results for mortality, while the TSA for the other outcomes suggested that a larger sample size is essential. The current evidence reveals NAC is not beneficial for treating patients with COVID- 19 with regard to respiratory outcome, mortality, duration of ICU stay and hospital stay. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 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 13 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 13 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 15% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 15% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 31% |
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 09 March 2023.
All research outputs
#20,152,624
of 25,637,545 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the Chinese Medical Association
#386
of 651 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#335,789
of 477,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the Chinese Medical Association
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,637,545 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 651 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 477,631 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.