↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Marine‐derived n‐3 fatty acids therapy for stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2022
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 (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

17 X users
1 Facebook page
4 Wikipedia pages
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

76 Mendeley
Marine‐derived n‐3 fatty acids therapy for stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2022
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012815.pub3
Pubmed ID

Celia Gabriela Alvarez Campano, Mary Joan Macleod, Lorna Aucott, Frank Thies


Currently, with stroke burden increasing, there is a need to explore therapeutic options that ameliorate the acute insult. There is substantial evidence of a neuroprotective effect of marine-derived n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) in animal models of stroke, leading to a better functional outcome. To assess the effects of administration of marine-derived n-3 PUFAs on functional outcomes and dependence in people with stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register (last searched 31 May 2021), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2021, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1948 to 31 May 2021), Embase Ovid (from 1980 to 31 May 2021), CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; from 1982 to 31 May 2021), Science Citation Index Expanded ‒ Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science - Web of Science (CPCI-S), and BIOSIS Citation Index. We also searched ongoing trial registers, reference lists, relevant systematic reviews, and used the Science Citation Index Reference Search. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing marine-derived n-3 PUFAs to placebo or open control (no placebo) in people with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), or both. At least two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence. We contacted study authors for clarification and additional information on stroke/TIA participants. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis or narrative synthesis, as appropriate. The primary outcome was efficacy (functional outcome) assessed using a validated scale, for example, the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended (GOSE) dichotomised into poor or good clinical outcome, the Barthel Index (higher score is better; scale from 0 to 100), or the Rivermead Mobility Index (higher score is better; scale from 0 to 15). Our secondary outcomes were vascular-related death, recurrent events, incidence of other type of stroke, adverse events, quality of life, and mood. We included 30 RCTs; nine of them provided outcome data (3339 participants). Only one study included participants in the acute phase of stroke (haemorrhagic). Doses of marine-derived n-3 PUFAs ranged from 400 mg/day to 3300 mg/day. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear in most trials, with a higher risk of bias in smaller studies. We assessed results separately for short (up to three months) and longer (more than three months) follow-up studies. Short follow-up (up to three months) Functional outcome was reported in only one pilot study as poor clinical outcome assessed with the GOSE (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 1.68, P = 0.52; 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Mood (assessed with the GHQ-30, lower score better) was reported by only one study and favoured control (mean difference (MD) 1.41, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.75, P = 0.04; 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of an effect of the intervention for the remainder of the secondary outcomes: vascular-related death (two studies, not pooled due to differences in population, RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.00, P = 0.50, and RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.72, P = 0.49; 142 participants; low-certainty evidence); recurrent events (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.02 to 8.84, P = 0.57; 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence); incidence of other type of stroke (two studies, not pooled due to different type of index stroke, RR 6.11, 95% CI 0.33 to 111.71, P = 0.22, and RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.58, P = 0.32; 58 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and quality of life (physical component, MD -2.31, 95% CI -4.81 to 0.19, P = 0.07, and mental component, MD -2.16, 95% CI -5.91 to 1.59, P = 0.26; 1 study; 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were reported by two studies (57 participants; very low-certainty evidence), one trial reporting extracranial haemorrhage (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.73, P = 0.16) and the other one reporting bleeding complications (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.35, P = 0.47). Longer follow-up (more than three months) One small trial assessed functional outcome with both the Barthel Index for activities of daily living (MD 7.09, 95% CI -5.16 to 19.34, P = 0.26), and the Rivermead Mobility Index for mobility (MD 1.30, 95% CI -1.31 to 3.91, P = 0.33) (52 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We carried out meta-analysis for vascular-related death (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.35, P = 0.86; 5 studies; 2237 participants; low-certainty evidence) and fatal recurrent events (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.55, P = 0.37; 3 studies; 1819 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of an effect of the intervention for mood (MD 1.00, 95% CI -2.07 to 4.07, P = 0.61; 1 study; 14 participants; low-certainty evidence). Incidence of other type of stroke and quality of life were not reported. Adverse events (all combined) were reported by only one study (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.58, P = 0.82; 1455 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain of the effect of marine-derived n-3 PUFAs therapy on functional outcomes and dependence after stroke as there is insufficient high-certainty evidence. More well-designed RCTs are needed, specifically in acute stroke, to determine the efficacy and safety of the intervention. Studies assessing functional outcome might consider starting the intervention as early as possible after the event, as well as using standardised, clinically relevant measures for functional outcomes, such as the modified Rankin Scale. Optimal doses remain to be determined; delivery forms (type of lipid carriers) and mode of administration (ingestion or injection) also need further consideration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 15 20%
Student > Master 8 11%
Other 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 4 5%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 31 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 18%
Unspecified 12 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 12%
Engineering 4 5%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 32 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 08 February 2024.
All research outputs
of 25,392,582 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 441,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,392,582 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 441,674 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.