↓ Skip to main content

Vitamin E supplementation in people with cystic fibrosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Vitamin E supplementation in people with cystic fibrosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009422.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter O Okebukola, Sonal Kansra, Joanne Barrett

Abstract

People with cystic fibrosis are at an increased risk of fat-soluble vitamin deficiency including vitamin E. Vitamin E deficiency can cause a host of conditions such as haemolytic anaemia, cerebellar ataxia and cognitive difficulties. Vitamin E supplementation is widely recommended in cystic fibrosis and aims to ameliorate this deficiency. This is an updated version of the review. To determine the effects of any level of vitamin E supplementation on the frequency of vitamin E deficiency disorders in people with cystic fibrosis. We searched the Cochrane Group's Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register and also searched international trial registers for any ongoing clinical trials that were not identified during our register search.Date of last search of the Register: 10 October 2016. Date of last search of international trial registers: 15 February 2017. Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing any preparation of vitamin E supplementation to placebo or no supplement, regardless of dosage or duration. Two authors extracted outcome data from each study (published information) and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. Four studies with a total of 141 participants were included in the review, two of these were in children (aged six months to 14.5 years), and the other two did not specify participants' age. All studies used different formulations and doses of vitamin E for various durations of treatment (10 days to six months). Two studies compared the supplementation of fat-soluble as well as water-soluble formulations to no supplementation in different arms of the same study. A third study compared a water-soluble formulation to a placebo; and in the fourth study a fat-soluble formulation of vitamin E was assessed against placebo.At one month, three months and six months, water-soluble vitamin E significantly improved serum vitamin E levels compared with control: at one month, two studies, mean difference 17.66 (95% confidence interval 10.59 to 24.74); at three months, one study, mean difference 11.61 (95% confidence interval 4.77 to 18.45); and at six months, one study, mean difference 19.74 (95% confidence interval 13.48 to 26.00). At one month fat-soluble vitamin E significantly improved serum vitamin E levels compared with control: one month, two studies, mean difference 13.59 (95% CI 9.52 to 17.66). The findings at three months were imprecise; one study; mean difference 6.40 (95% confidence interval -1.45 to 14.25).None of the studies report the review's primary outcomes of vitamin E total lipid ratio or the incidence of vitamin E-specific deficiency disorders, or the secondary outcomes lung function or quality of life. Only one study, comparing water-soluble vitamin E with placebo, reported the secondary outcome of growth and nutritional status (weight), but the results are uncertain due to imprecision around the effect estimate.There was limited detail about randomisation and blinding in the included studies which compromises the quality of the evidence base for the review. The heterogeneous mix of the formulations with differing biovailabilities among these studies also limits the generalisability of the data to the wider cystic fibrosis population. Vitamin E supplementation led to an improvement in vitamin E levels in people with cystic fibrosis, although the studies may have been at risk of bias. No data on other outcomes of interest were available to allow conclusions about any other benefits of this therapy.In future, larger studies are needed, especially in people already being treated with enteric-coated pancreatic enzymes and supplemented with vitamin E, to look at more specific outcome measures such as vitamin E status, lung function and nutritional status. Future studies could also look at the optimal dose of vitamin E required to achieve maximal clinical effectiveness.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 113 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Researcher 15 13%
Unspecified 14 12%
Other 23 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 17%
Unspecified 19 16%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Other 18 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#772,775
of 12,936,999 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,543
of 10,412 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,401
of 252,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#72
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,936,999 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,412 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 252,880 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.