↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for lowering plasma homocysteine levels in dialysis patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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 lowering plasma homocysteine levels in dialysis patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004683.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sagar U Nigwekar, Amy Kang, Sophia Zoungas, Alan Cass, Martin P Gallagher, Satyarth Kulshrestha, Sankar D Navaneethan, Vlado Perkovic, Giovanni FM Strippoli, Meg J Jardine

Abstract

People with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) have high rates of cardiovascular events. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of homocysteine-lowering therapies have not shown reductions in cardiovascular event rates in the general population. However, people with kidney disease have higher levels of homocysteine and may have different mechanisms of cardiovascular disease. We performed a systematic review of the effect of homocysteine-lowering therapies in people with ESKD. To evaluate the benefits and harms of established homocysteine lowering therapy (folic acid, vitamin B6, vitamin B12) on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular event rates in patients with ESKD. We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 25 January 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies conducted in people with ESKD that reported at least 100 patient-years of follow-up and assessed the effect of therapies that are known to have homocysteine-lowering properties were included. Two authors independently extracted data using a standardised form. The primary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, incident cardiovascular disease (fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction and coronary revascularisation), cerebrovascular disease (stroke and cerebrovascular revascularisation), peripheral vascular disease (lower limb amputation), venous thromboembolic disease (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism), thrombosis of dialysis access, and adverse events. The effects of homocysteine-lowering therapies on outcomes were assessed with meta-analyses using random-effects models. Prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted. We included six studies that reported data on 2452 participants with ESKD. Interventions investigated were folic acid with or without other vitamins (vitamin B6, vitamin B12). Participants' mean age was 48 to 65 years, and proportions of male participants ranged from 50% to 98%.Homocysteine-lowering therapy probably leads to little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (4 studies, 1186 participants: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.22). There was no evidence of heterogeneity among the included studies (I² = 0%). Homocysteine-lowering therapy had little or no effect on all-cause mortality or any other of this review's secondary outcomes. All prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses demonstrated little or no difference. Reported adverse events were mild and there was no increase in the incidence of adverse events from homocysteine-lowering therapies (3 studies, 1248 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.47; I(2) = 0%). Overall, studies were assessed as being at low risk of bias and there was no evidence of publication bias. Homocysteine-lowering therapies were not found to reduce mortality (cardiovascular and all-cause) or cardiovascular events among people with ESKD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 3 30%
Researcher 2 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Student > Postgraduate 1 10%
Other 1 10%
Other 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 4 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 40%
Psychology 1 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 11 September 2017.
All research outputs
#1,481,166
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,966
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,175
of 264,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#77
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 264,959 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 169 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 55% of its contemporaries.