↓ Skip to main content

S‐adenosyl‐L‐methionine for alcoholic liver diseases

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
S‐adenosyl‐L‐methionine for alcoholic liver diseases
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002235.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrea Rambaldi, Christian Gluud

Abstract

Alcohol is a major cause of liver disease and disrupts methionine and oxidative balances. S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe) acts as a methyl donor for methylation reactions and participates in the synthesis of glutathione, the main cellular antioxidant. Randomised clinical trials have addressed the question whether SAMe may benefit patients with alcoholic liver diseases. To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of SAMe for patients with alcoholic liver diseases. We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (May 2005), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1950 to May 2005), EMBASE (1980 to May 2005), and Science Citation Index Expanded (searched May 2005). We included randomised clinical trials studying patients with alcoholic liver diseases. Interventions encompassed per oral or parenteral administration of SAMe at any dose versus placebo or no intervention. We performed all analyses according to the intention-to-treat method using RevMan Analyses provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. We evaluated the methodological quality of the randomised clinical trials by quality components. We identified nine randomised clinical trials including a heterogeneous sample of 434 patients with alcoholic liver diseases. The methodological quality regarding randomisation was generally low, but 8 out of 9 trials were placebo controlled. Only one trial including 123 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis used adequate methodology and reported clearly on all-cause mortality and liver transplantation. We found no significant effects of SAMe on all-cause mortality (relative risks (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 1.26), liver-related mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.48), all-cause mortality or liver transplantation (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.09), or complications (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.16), but the analysis is based mostly on one trial only. SAMe was not significantly associated with non-serious adverse events (RR 4.92; 95% CI 0.59 to 40.89) and no serious adverse events were reported. We could not find evidence supporting or refuting the use of SAMe for patients with alcoholic liver diseases. We need more long-term, high-quality randomised trials on SAMe for these patients before SAMe may be recommended for clinical practice.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 3%
Unknown 36 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 24%
Student > Master 5 14%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 5%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 43%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Unspecified 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 10 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 19 May 2011.
All research outputs
#4,035,482
of 26,557,909 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,561
of 13,245 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,857
of 294,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#184
of 296 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,557,909 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,245 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 294,182 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 296 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.