↓ Skip to main content

L-carnitine for cognitive enhancement in people without cognitive impairment

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
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
2 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2 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
L-carnitine for cognitive enhancement in people without cognitive impairment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009374.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ning Chen, Mi Yang, Muke Zhou, Jing Xiao, Jian Guo, Li He

Abstract

Safe interventions to enhance cognitive function in cognitively healthy people would be very valuable for several reasons, including a better quality of life and professional success. While L-carnitine has been reported to enhance cognitive function in some conditions, its efficacy is disputed. The evidence of its efficacy for cognitively healthy people has not previously been systematically reviewed. To assess the efficacy and safety of L-carnitine for the enhancement of cognitive function in people without cognitive impairment. We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register, on 4 November 2016. We used the search terms 'L-carnitine' or 'acetyl-L-carnitine' or 'propionyl-L-carnitine' or 'ALC' or 'PLC' or 'ALCAR' or 'ALPAR'. We ran additional separate searches in several other sources to ensure that we retrieved the most up-to-date results. We also reviewed the bibliographies of the randomised controlled trials identified and contacted the authors and known experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional published or unpublished data. Eligible trials were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, parallel-group or cross-over, that compared L-carnitine or its derivatives, acetyl-L-carnitine or propionyl-L-carnitine, at any dose and for any length of treatment, with placebo or no treatment in cognitively healthy people of any age and either gender. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently selected trials and evaluated the methodological quality, then extracted and analysed data from the included trials. Only two RCTs were eligible. One was a cross-over trial with 18 participants. The other randomised 400 participants to one of four treatments, of which two (L-carnitine and placebo) were relevant to this review, but the exact numbers of participants in these two treatment groups was not reported. All participants were young adults. Methodological details were poorly reported, and we considered the risk of bias in both studies to be unclear. The trials assessed different cognitive outcomes. We could extract cognitive data on approximately 200 participants from one trial. We found no evidence that L-carnitine has any effect on reaction time, vigilance, immediate memory, or delayed recall after three days of treatment. This trial report stated that there was a small number of adverse effects, none of which were serious. The small cross-over trial also reported no effect of L-carnitine on cognition, but did not provide data; no information was provided on adverse effects. We considered the available evidence to be of very low quality for all reported outcomes. Due to the limited number of included trials, short-term treatment, and inadequate reporting, we were unable to draw any conclusions about the efficacy or safety of L-carnitine for cognitive enhancement in healthy adults. Well-designed, randomised, placebo-controlled trials of L-carnitine for cognition enhancement in cognitively healthy people, with large samples and relatively long-term follow-up, are still needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 50%
Unknown 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 1 50%
Unknown 1 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 04 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,061,737
of 13,599,972 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,778
of 10,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,655
of 261,895 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#135
of 261 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,599,972 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,662 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 261,895 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 261 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.