↓ Skip to main content

Nitric oxide donors (nitrates), L-arginine, or nitric oxide synthase inhibitors for acute stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 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 (79th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 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
Nitric oxide donors (nitrates), L-arginine, or nitric oxide synthase inhibitors for acute stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000398.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip MW Bath, Kailash Krishnan, Jason P Appleton

Abstract

Nitric oxide (NO) has multiple effects that may be beneficial in acute stroke, including lowering blood pressure, and promoting reperfusion and cytoprotection. Some forms of nitric oxide synthase inhibition (NOS-I) may also be beneficial. However, high concentrations of NO are likely to be toxic to brain tissue. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 1998, and last updated in 2002. To assess the safety and efficacy of NO donors, L-arginine, and NOS-I in people with acute stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 6 February 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2016), Embase (1980 to June 2016), ISI Science Citation Indexes (1981 to June 2016), Stroke Trials Registry (searched June 2016), International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) (searched June 2016), Clinical Trials registry (searched June 2016), and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (searched June 2016). Previously, we had contacted drug companies and researchers in the field. Randomised controlled trials comparing nitric oxide donors, L-arginine, or NOS-I versus placebo or open control in people within one week of onset of confirmed stroke. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted data. The review authors cross-checked data and resolved issues through discussion. We obtained published and unpublished data, as available. Data were reported as mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We included five completed trials, involving 4197 participants; all tested transdermal glyceryl trinitrate (GTN), an NO donor. The assessed risk of bias was low across the included studies; one study was double-blind, one open-label and three were single-blind. All included studies had blinded outcome assessment. Overall, GTN did not improve the primary outcome of death or dependency at the end of trial (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) > 2, OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.10, 4195 participants, high-quality evidence). GTN did not improve secondary outcomes, including death (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.50) and quality of life (MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.15) at the end of trial overall (high-quality evidence). Systolic/diastolic blood pressure (BP) was lower in people treated with GTN (MD -7.2 mmHg (95% CI -8.6 to -5.9) and MD -3.3 (95% CI -4.2 to -2.5) respectively) and heart rate was higher (MD 2.0 beats per minute (95% CI 1.1 to 2.9)). Headache was more common in those randomised to GTN (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.62). We did not find any trials assessing other nitrates, L-arginine, or NOS-I. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend the use of NO donors, L-arginine or NOS-I in acute stroke, and only one drug (GTN) has been assessed. In people with acute stroke, GTN reduces blood pressure, increases heart rate and headache, but does not alter clinical outcome (all based on high-quality evidence).

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 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 26%
Unspecified 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 21 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 36%
Unspecified 14 19%
Neuroscience 11 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Other 8 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 26 April 2019.
All research outputs
#1,972,796
of 13,663,123 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,652
of 10,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,530
of 262,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#119
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,663,123 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,703 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 262,913 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.