↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
28 tweeters
patent
11 patents
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
271 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
Interventions for paracetamol (acetaminophen) overdose
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003328.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela L Chiew, Christian Gluud, Jesper Brok, Nick A Buckley

Abstract

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most widely used non-prescription analgesic in the world. Paracetamol is commonly taken in overdose either deliberately or unintentionally. In high-income countries, paracetamol toxicity is a common cause of acute liver injury. There are various interventions to treat paracetamol poisoning, depending on the clinical status of the person. These interventions include inhibiting the absorption of paracetamol from the gastrointestinal tract (decontamination), removal of paracetamol from the vascular system, and antidotes to prevent the formation of, or to detoxify, metabolites. To assess the benefits and harms of interventions for paracetamol overdosage irrespective of the cause of the overdose. We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (January 2017), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 11), MEDLINE (1946 to January 2017), Embase (1974 to January 2017), and Science Citation Index Expanded (1900 to January 2017). We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov database (US National Institute of Health) for any ongoing or completed trials (January 2017). We examined the reference lists of relevant papers identified by the search and other published reviews. Randomised clinical trials assessing benefits and harms of interventions in people who have ingested a paracetamol overdose. The interventions could have been gastric lavage, ipecacuanha, or activated charcoal, or various extracorporeal treatments, or antidotes. The interventions could have been compared with placebo, no intervention, or to each other in differing regimens. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials. We used fixed-effect and random-effects Peto odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for analysis of the review outcomes. We used the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess the risks of bias (i.e. systematic errors leading to overestimation of benefits and underestimation of harms). We used Trial Sequential Analysis to control risks of random errors (i.e. play of chance) and GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence and constructed 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE software. We identified 11 randomised clinical trials (of which one acetylcysteine trial was abandoned due to low numbers recruited), assessing several different interventions in 700 participants. The variety of interventions studied included decontamination, extracorporeal measures, and antidotes to detoxify paracetamol's toxic metabolite; which included methionine, cysteamine, dimercaprol, or acetylcysteine. There were no randomised clinical trials of agents that inhibit cytochrome P-450 to decrease the activation of the toxic metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine.Of the 11 trials, only two had two common outcomes, and hence, we could only meta-analyse two comparisons. Each of the remaining comparisons included outcome data from one trial only and hence their results are presented as described in the trials. All trial analyses lack power to access efficacy. Furthermore, all the trials were at high risk of bias. Accordingly, the quality of evidence was low or very low for all comparisons. Interventions that prevent absorption, such as gastric lavage, ipecacuanha, or activated charcoal were compared with placebo or no intervention and with each other in one four-armed randomised clinical trial involving 60 participants with an uncertain randomisation procedure and hence very low quality. The trial presented results on lowering plasma paracetamol levels. Activated charcoal seemed to reduce the absorption of paracetamol, but the clinical benefits were unclear. Activated charcoal seemed to have the best risk:benefit ratio among gastric lavage, ipecacuanha, or supportive treatment if given within four hours of ingestion. There seemed to be no difference between gastric lavage and ipecacuanha, but gastric lavage and ipecacuanha seemed more effective than no treatment (very low quality of evidence). Extracorporeal interventions included charcoal haemoperfusion compared with conventional treatment (supportive care including gastric lavage, intravenous fluids, and fresh frozen plasma) in one trial with 16 participants. The mean cumulative amount of paracetamol removed was 1.4 g. One participant from the haemoperfusion group who had ingested 135 g of paracetamol, died. There were no deaths in the conventional treatment group. Accordingly, we found no benefit of charcoal haemoperfusion (very low quality of evidence). Acetylcysteine appeared superior to placebo and had fewer adverse effects when compared with dimercaprol or cysteamine. Acetylcysteine superiority to methionine was unproven. One small trial (low quality evidence) found that acetylcysteine may reduce mortality in people with fulminant hepatic failure (Peto OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.94). The most recent randomised clinical trials studied different acetylcysteine regimens, with the primary outcome being adverse events. It was unclear which acetylcysteine treatment protocol offered the best efficacy, as most trials were underpowered to look at this outcome. One trial showed that a modified 12-hour acetylcysteine regimen with a two-hour acetylcysteine 100 mg/kg bodyweight loading dose was associated with significantly fewer adverse reactions compared with the traditional three-bag 20.25-hour regimen (low quality of evidence). All Trial Sequential Analyses showed lack of sufficient power. Children were not included in the majority of trials. Hence, the evidence pertains only to adults. These results highlight the paucity of randomised clinical trials comparing different interventions for paracetamol overdose and their routes of administration and the low or very low level quality of the evidence that is available. Evidence from a single trial found activated charcoal seemed the best choice to reduce absorption of paracetamol. Acetylcysteine should be given to people at risk of toxicity including people presenting with liver failure. Further randomised clinical trials with low risk of bias and adequate number of participants are required to determine which regimen results in the fewest adverse effects with the best efficacy. Current management of paracetamol poisoning worldwide involves the administration of intravenous or oral acetylcysteine which is based mainly on observational studies. Results from these observational studies indicate that treatment with acetylcysteine seems to result in a decrease in morbidity and mortality, However, further evidence from randomised clinical trials comparing different treatments are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 271 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Nigeria 1 <1%
Unknown 269 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 52 19%
Student > Master 41 15%
Researcher 29 11%
Student > Postgraduate 22 8%
Other 22 8%
Other 48 18%
Unknown 57 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 4%
Psychology 8 3%
Other 44 16%
Unknown 58 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 34. 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 March 2021.
All research outputs
#726,787
of 17,483,393 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,837
of 11,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,146
of 283,513 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#59
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,483,393 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,701 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 283,513 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 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 72% of its contemporaries.