↓ Skip to main content

Glutamine for induction of remission in Crohn's disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
22 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 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
Glutamine for induction of remission in Crohn's disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007348.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony K Akobeng, Mamoun Elawad, Morris Gordon

Abstract

Crohn's disease is a chronic relapsing condition of the alimentary tract with a high morbidity secondary to bowel inflammation. Glutamine plays a key role in maintaining the integrity of the intestinal mucosa and has been shown to reduce inflammation and disease activity in experimental models of Crohn's disease. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of glutamine supplementation for induction of remission in Crohn's disease. We searched the following databases from inception to November 15, 2015: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane IBD Group Specialised Register. Study references were also searched for additional trials. There were no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared glutamine supplementation administered by any route to a placebo, active comparator or no intervention in people with active Crohn's disease were considered for inclusion. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess methodological quality. The primary outcome measure was clinical or endoscopic remission. Secondary outcomes included intestinal permeability, clinical response, quality of life, growth in children and adverse events. Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. The overall quality of the evidence supporting the primary outcome was evaluated using the GRADE criteria. Two small RCTs (total 42 patients) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. One study (18 patients) compared four weeks of treatment with a glutamine-enriched polymeric diet (42% amino acid composition) to a standard polymeric diet (4% amino acid composition) with low glutamine content in paediatric patients (< 18 years of age) with active Crohn's disease. The other study (24 patients) compared glutamine-supplemented total parenteral nutrition to non-supplemented total parenteral nutrition in adult patients (> 18 years of age) with acute exacerbation of inflammatory bowel disease. The paediatric study was rated as low risk of bias. The study in adult patients was rated as unclear risk of bias for blinding and low risk of bias for all other items. It was not possible to pool data for meta-analysis because of significant differences in study populations, nature of interventions, and the way outcomes were assessed. Data from one study showed no statistically significant difference in clinical remission rates at four weeks. Forty-four per cent (4/9) of patients who received a glutamine-enriched polymeric diet achieved remission compared to 56% (5/9) of patients who received a standard low-glutamine polymeric diet (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.04). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of evidence for this outcome was low due to serious imprecision (9 events). In both included studies, no statistically significant changes in intestinal permeability were found between patients who received glutamine supplementation and those who did not. Neither study reported on clinical response, quality of life or growth in children. Adverse event data were not well documented. There were no serious adverse events in the paediatric study. The study in adult patients reported three central catheter infections with positive blood cultures in the glutamine group compared to none in the control group (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 122.44). Currently there is insufficient evidence to allow firm conclusions regarding the efficacy and safety of glutamine for induction of remission in Crohn's disease. Data from two small studies suggest that glutamine supplementation may not be beneficial in active Crohn's disease but these results need to be interpreted with caution as they are based on small numbers of patients. This review highlights the need for adequately powered randomised controlled trials to investigate the efficacy and safety of glutamine for induction of remission in Crohn's disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 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 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 112 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 19%
Student > Master 19 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 13%
Researcher 13 12%
Other 10 9%
Other 21 19%
Unknown 13 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 16 14%
Unknown 22 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 29 August 2017.
All research outputs
#714,244
of 14,277,842 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,147
of 10,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,267
of 340,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#48
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,277,842 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 10,940 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 340,371 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 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 74% of its contemporaries.