↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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 (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
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.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 24%
Student > Master 4 12%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 7 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 47%
Unspecified 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Linguistics 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 9 26%
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
#3,786,158
of 25,385,864 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,490
of 12,891 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,695
of 290,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#186
of 284 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,864 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 12,891 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 290,836 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 284 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.