↓ Skip to main content

Treatment of fatigue in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
62 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
217 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
Treatment of fatigue in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011005.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chris Gibbons, Francesco Pagnini, Tim Friede, Carolyn A Young

Abstract

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as motor neuron disease (MND), is terminal, progressive neurological condition for which there are no curative treatments. Among people with ALS/MND, fatigue is a common and debilitating symptom, which is characterised by reversible motor weakness and whole-body tiredness that is only partially relieved by rest. The effectiveness of pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatments for fatigue in ALS/MND is not yet established. To assess the effects of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue in ALS/MND. We searched the following databases on 5 September 2017: Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and ERIC. We also searched two clinical trials registries. We selected randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of any intervention which sought to reduce fatigue for people with ALS/MND. We included studies if reduction in fatigue was a primary or secondary outcome of the trial. We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We included one pharmacological (modafinil) study and three non-pharmacological studies (resistance exercise, respiratory exercise, and repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS)), involving a total of 86 participants with ALS/MND. None of the included studies were free from risk of bias. Since there was only one trial for each intervention, no meta-analysis was possible. All studies assessed fatigue using the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS; scale from 9 to 63, higher scores indicate more fatigue). Information for assessing bias was often lacking in study reports, making the risk of bias unclear across several domains in all trials. Blinding of participants was not possible in exercise trials, but the outcome assessment was blinded.We found very low-quality evidence suggesting possible improvements in fatigue for modafinil treatment versus placebo (MD -11.00, 95% CI -23.08 to 1.08), respiratory exercise versus a sham intervention (MD -9.65, 95% CI -22.04 to 2.73), and rTMS versus sham rTMS (data not provided), which warrant further investigation to clarify the efficacy of these treatments for fatigue in ALS/MND. We found no clear improvements in fatigue for resistance exercise versus usual care (MD 0.20, 95% CI -10.98 to 11.38; very low-quality evidence).Three participants in the modafinil group dropped out of the modafinil study, two citing issues with headache and one with chest tightness; other adverse effects were anxiety, nausea, dizziness, and sialorrhoea (probably ALS-related). The trials reported no adverse effects of exercise or rTMS.We cannot be certain about the effects of any of the interventions studied because of imprecision (small numbers of participants, wide CI), and possible study limitations. It is impossible to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions to improve fatigue for people with ALS/MND as there are few randomised studies, and the quality of available evidence is very low.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 62 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 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 217 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 44 20%
Student > Bachelor 33 15%
Researcher 25 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 30 14%
Unknown 55 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 16%
Neuroscience 21 10%
Psychology 12 6%
Sports and Recreations 11 5%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 67 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 22 November 2019.
All research outputs
#564,487
of 16,651,634 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,435
of 11,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,328
of 413,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#38
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,651,634 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,560 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 413,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.