↓ Skip to main content

L-acetylcarnitine for treating fragile X syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
139 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-acetylcarnitine for treating fragile X syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010012.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

José-Ramón Rueda, Virginia Guillén, Javier Ballesteros, Maria-Isabel Tejada, Ivan Solà

Abstract

People with fragile X syndrome (FXS) have an intellectual dysfunction that can range from very mild to severe. Symptoms can include speech and language delays and behavioural difficulties such as aggression or self injurious behaviours, emotional lability, and anxiety-related problems (for example obsessive-compulsive symptoms and perseverative behaviours). In some cases, affected people may have an additional diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or an autism spectrum disorder. To review the efficacy and safety of L-acetylcarnitine in improving the psychological, intellectual, and social performance of people with FXS. In May 2015 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and two other databases. We also searched three trials registers, four theses databases, and the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy of L-acetylcarnitine, at any dose, in people of any age diagnosed with FXS compared with placebo. For each trial, two review authors independently extracted data on the children included and interventions compared, and assessed the risk of bias of the studies across the following domains: randomisation sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding (of participants, personnel, and outcome assessors), incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other potential sources of bias. We found only two RCTs that compared oral L-acetylcarnitine (LAC) with oral placebo in children with FXS. The studies included a total of 83 participants, all of them male, who were treated and followed for one year. The age of participants at the start of treatment ranged from 6 to 13 years, with a mean age of 9 years. Neither study provided information on randomisation, allocation concealment procedures, or blinding of outcome assessment, and we received no responses from the authors we emailed for clarification. We therefore rated studies as being at unclear risk of bias on these domains. We judged both studies to be at low risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting, but to be at high risk of other bias, as at least one study was funded by a drug company, and in both studies people working for the company were part of the research team.We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to rate the quality of the available evidence. Overall, the quality of the evidence was low due to the imprecision of results and high risk of other bias.Regarding the primary outcome of psychological and learning capabilities, both studies assessed the effect of interventions on children's verbal and non-verbal intellectual functioning using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Revised. The authors did not provide detailed data on those results but said that they found no important differences between treatment and placebo.Both studies evaluated the impact of the treatment on hyperactive behaviour using the Conners' Abbreviated Parent-Teacher Questionnaire. In one study, teachers' assessments of the children found no clear evidence of a difference (mean difference (MD) 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.08 to 6.08, n = 51; low-quality evidence). The other study stated that there were no differences between treated and untreated participants, but did not provide detailed data for inclusion in the meta-analysis.Parents' assessments favoured LAC in one study (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.94 to -0.19, n = 17; low-quality evidence), but not in the other (MD -2.80, 95% CI -7.61 to 2.01, n = 51; low-quality evidence), though changes were not large enough to be considered clinically relevant.Regarding social skills, one study reported no clear evidence of a difference in Vineland Adaptive Behavior composite scores (MD 8.20, 95% CI -0.02 to 16.42, n = 51; low-quality evidence), yet results in the socialisation domain favoured LAC (MD 11.30, 95% CI 2.52 to 20.08, n = 51; low-quality evidence).Both studies assessed the safety of the active treatment and recorded no side effects. Neither of the included studies assessed the secondary outcome of caregiver burden. Low-quality evidence from two small trials showed that when compared to placebo, LAC may not improve intellectual functioning or hyperactive behaviour in children with FXS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 139 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 2 1%
Brazil 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Croatia 1 <1%
Unknown 133 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 15%
Researcher 21 15%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 11%
Other 40 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 34%
Psychology 38 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 13%
Unspecified 15 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Other 16 12%

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 17 October 2018.
All research outputs
#1,837,529
of 12,801,967 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,544
of 10,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,591
of 231,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#128
of 253 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,801,967 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 10,429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. 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 231,209 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 253 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.