↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Fish oil for kidney transplant recipients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
Title
Fish oil for kidney transplant recipients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005282.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andy KH Lim, Karen J Manley, Matthew A Roberts, Margaret B Fraenkel

Abstract

Calcineurin inhibitors used in kidney transplantation for immunosuppression have adverse effects that may contribute to nephrotoxicity and increased cardiovascular risk profile. Fish oils are rich in very long chain omega-3 fatty acids, which may reduce nephrotoxicity by improving endothelial function and reduce rejection rates through their immuno-modulatory effects. They may also modify the cardiovascular risk profile. Hence, fish oils may potentially prolong graft survival and reduce cardiovascular mortality. This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of fish oil treatment in ameliorating the kidney and cardiovascular adverse effects of CNI-based immunosuppressive therapy in kidney transplant recipients. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register (up to 17 March 2016) through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of fish oils in kidney transplant recipients on a calcineurin inhibitor-based immunosuppressive regimen. RCTs of fish oil versus statins were included. Data was extracted and the quality of studies assessed by two authors, with differences resolved by discussion with a third independent author. Dichotomous outcomes were reported as risk ratio (RR) and continuous outcome measures were reported as the mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals using the random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using a Chi(2) test on n-1 degrees of freedom and the I(2) statistic. Data not suitable for pooling were tabulated and described. Fifteen studies (733 patients) were suitable for analysis. All studies were small and had variable methodology. Fish oil did not significantly affect patient or graft survival, acute rejection rates, or calcineurin inhibitor toxicity when compared to placebo. Overall SCr was significantly lower in the fish oil group compared to placebo (5 studies, 237 participants: MD -30.63 µmol/L, 95% CI -59.74 to -1.53; I(2) = 88%). In the subgroup analysis, this was only significant in the long-course (six months or more) group (4 studies, 157 participants: MD -37.41 µmol/L, 95% CI -69.89 to -4.94; I(2) = 82%). Fish oil treatment was associated with a lower diastolic blood pressure (4 studies, 200 participants: MD -4.53 mm Hg, 95% CI -7.60 to -1.45) compared to placebo. Patients receiving fish oil for more than six months had a modest increase in HDL (5 studies, 178 participants: MD 0.12 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.21; I(2) = 47%) compared to placebo. Fish oil effects on lipids were not significantly different from low-dose statins. There was insufficient data to analyse cardiovascular outcomes. Fishy aftertaste and gastrointestinal upset were common but did not result in significant patient drop-out. There is insufficient evidence from currently available RCTs to recommend fish oil therapy to improve kidney function, rejection rates, patient survival or graft survival. The improvements in HDL cholesterol and diastolic blood pressure were too modest to recommend routine use. To determine a benefit in clinical outcomes, future RCTs will need to be adequately powered with these outcomes in mind.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 152 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 16%
Student > Bachelor 25 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 39 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 9%
Psychology 7 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 16 10%
Unknown 45 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,633,671
of 23,368,819 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,108
of 12,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,796
of 344,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#150
of 262 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,368,819 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,645 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 344,918 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 262 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.