↓ Skip to main content

Branched-chain amino acids for people with hepatic encephalopathy

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 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
Branched-chain amino acids for people with hepatic encephalopathy
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001939.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lise Lotte Gluud, Gitte Dam, Iñigo Les, Giulio Marchesini, Mette Borre, Niels Kristian Aagaard, Hendrik Vilstrup

Abstract

Hepatic encephalopathy is a brain dysfunction with neurological and psychiatric changes associated with liver insufficiency or portal-systemic shunting. The severity ranges from minor symptoms to coma. A Cochrane systematic review including 11 randomised clinical trials on branched-chain amino acids (BCAA) versus control interventions has evaluated if BCAA may benefit people with hepatic encephalopathy. To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of BCAA versus any control intervention for people with hepatic encephalopathy. We identified trials through manual and electronic searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science, and LILACS (May 2017). We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of the bias control, language, or publication status. The authors independently extracted data based on published reports and collected data from the primary investigators. We changed our primary outcomes in this update of the review to include mortality (all cause), hepatic encephalopathy (number of people without improved manifestations of hepatic encephalopathy), and adverse events. The analyses included random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses. We performed subgroup, sensitivity, regression, and trial sequential analyses to evaluate sources of heterogeneity (including intervention, and participant and trial characteristics), bias (using The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group method), small-study effects, and the robustness of the results after adjusting for sparse data and multiplicity. We graded the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We found 16 randomised clinical trials including 827 participants with hepatic encephalopathy classed as overt (12 trials) or minimal (four trials). Eight trials assessed oral BCAA supplements and seven trials assessed intravenous BCAA. The control groups received placebo/no intervention (two trials), diets (10 trials), lactulose (two trials), or neomycin (two trials). In 15 trials, all participants had cirrhosis. We classed seven trials as low risk of bias and nine trials as high risk of bias (mainly due to lack of blinding or for-profit funding). In a random-effects meta-analysis of mortality, we found no difference between BCAA and controls (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.11; 760 participants; 15 trials; moderate quality of evidence). We found no evidence of small-study effects. Sensitivity analyses of trials with a low risk of bias found no beneficial or detrimental effect of BCAA on mortality. Trial sequential analysis showed that the required information size was not reached, suggesting that additional evidence was needed. BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.88; 827 participants; 16 trials; high quality of evidence). We found no small-study effects and confirmed the beneficial effect of BCAA in a sensitivity analysis that only included trials with a low risk of bias (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96). The trial sequential analysis showed that firm evidence was reached. In a fixed-effect meta-analysis, we found that BCAA increased the risk of nausea and vomiting (RR 5.56; 2.93 to 10.55; moderate quality of evidence). We found no beneficial or detrimental effects of BCAA on nausea or vomiting in a random-effects meta-analysis or on quality of life or nutritional parameters. We did not identify predictors of the intervention effect in the subgroup, sensitivity, or meta-regression analyses. In sensitivity analyses that excluded trials with a lactulose or neomycin control, BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.92). Additional sensitivity analyses found no difference between BCAA and lactulose or neomycin (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.30). In this updated review, we included five additional trials. The analyses showed that BCAA had a beneficial effect on hepatic encephalopathy. We found no effect on mortality, quality of life, or nutritional parameters, but we need additional trials to evaluate these outcomes. Likewise, we need additional randomised clinical trials to determine the effect of BCAA compared with interventions such as non-absorbable disaccharides, rifaximin, or other antibiotics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 1%
France 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 167 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 15%
Unspecified 23 13%
Researcher 23 13%
Student > Master 23 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 12%
Other 56 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 45%
Unspecified 38 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Other 31 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 12 November 2018.
All research outputs
#888,520
of 13,535,089 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,764
of 10,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,166
of 265,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#100
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,535,089 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,635 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 265,893 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 59% of its contemporaries.