↓ Skip to main content

Ascorbic acid for the treatment of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Ascorbic acid for the treatment of Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011952
Pubmed ID
Authors

Burkhard Gess, Jonathan Baets, Peter De Jonghe, Mary M Reilly, Davide Pareyson, Peter Young

Abstract

Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease (CMT) comprises a large group of different forms of hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy. The molecular basis of several CMT subtypes has been clarified during the last 20 years. Since slowly progressive muscle weakness and sensory disturbances are the main features of these syndromes, treatments aim to improve motor impairment and sensory disturbances to improve abilities. Pharmacological treatment trials in CMT are rare. This review was derived from a Cochrane review, Treatment for Charcot Marie Tooth disease, which will be updated via this review and a forthcoming title, Treatments other than ascorbic acid for Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease. To assess the effects of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) treatment for CMT. On 21 September 2015, we searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of treatment for CMT. We also checked clinical trials registries for ongoing studies. We included RCTs and quasi-RCTs of any ascorbic acid treatment for people with CMT. Where a study aimed to evaluate the treatment of general neuromuscular symptoms of people with peripheral neuropathy including CMT, we included the study if we were able to identify the effect of treatment in the CMT group. We did not include observational studies or case reports of ascorbic acid treatment in people with CMT. Two review authors (BG and JB) independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. Six RCTs compared the effect of oral ascorbic acid (1 to 4 grams) and placebo treatment in CMT1A. In five trials involving adults with CMT1A, a total of 622 participants received ascorbic acid or placebo. Trials were largely at low risk of bias. There is high-quality evidence that ascorbic acid does not improve the course of CMT1A in adults as measured by the CMT neuropathy score (0 to 36 scale) at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -0.37; 95% confidence intervals (CI) -0.83 to 0.09; five studies; N = 533), or at 24 months (MD -0.21; 95% CI -0.81 to 0.39; three studies; N = 388). Ascorbic acid treatment showed a positive effect on the nine-hole peg test versus placebo (MD -1.16 seconds; 95% CI -1.96 to -0.37), but the clinical significance of this result is probably small. Meta-analyses of other secondary outcome parameters showed no relevant benefit of ascorbic acid. In one trial, 80 children with CMT1A received ascorbic acid or placebo. The trial showed no clinical benefit of ascorbic acid treatment. Adverse effects did not differ in their nature or abundance between ascorbic acid and placebo. High-quality evidence indicates that ascorbic acid does not improve the course of CMT1A in adults in terms of the outcome parameters used. According to low-quality evidence, ascorbic acid does not improve the course of CMT1A in children. However, CMT1A is slowly progressive and the outcome parameters show only small change over time. Longer study durations should be considered, and outcome parameters more sensitive to change over time should be designed and validated for future studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 14 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 18 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 November 2019.
All research outputs
#4,354,079
of 14,330,171 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,341
of 10,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,330
of 362,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#168
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,330,171 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,948 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 362,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.