↓ Skip to main content

ω-3 fatty acids, γ-linolenic acid, and antioxidants: immunomodulators or inert dietary supplements?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
ω-3 fatty acids, γ-linolenic acid, and antioxidants: immunomodulators or inert dietary supplements?
Published in
Critical Care, November 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11863
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher K Schott, David T Huang

Abstract

EXPANDED ABSTRACT: CITATION: Rice TW, Wheeler AP, Thompson BT, deBoisblanc BP, Steingrub J, Rock, P. Enteral Omega-3 Fatty Acid, γ-Linolenic Acid, and Antioxidant Supplementation in Acute Lung Injury. JAMA. 2011; 306(14):1574-1581. PubMed PMID: 21976613. BACKGROUND: The omega-3 (n-3) fatty acids docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid, along with γ-linolenic acid and antioxidants, may modulate systemic inflammatory response and improve oxygenation and outcomes in patients with acute lung injury. METHODS: Objective: To determine if dietary supplementation of these substances to patients with acute lung injury would increase ventilator-free days to study day 28.Design: The OMEGA study, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial conducted from January 2, 2008, through February 21, 2009. All participants had complete follow-up.Setting: This trial occurred at 44 hospitals in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ARDS Clinical Trials Network.Subjects: Participants were 272 adults within 48 hours of developing acute lung injury requiring mechanical ventilation whose physicians intended to start enteral nutrition.Intervention: Twice-daily enteral supplementation of n-3 fatty acids, γ -linolenic acid, and antioxidants compared with an isocaloric control. Enteral nutrition, directed by a protocol, was delivered separately from the study supplement.Outcomes: Ventilator-free days to study day 28. RESULTS: The study was stopped early for futility after 143 and 129 patients were enrolled in the n-3 and control groups. Despite an 8-fold increase in plasma eicosapentaenoic acid levels, patients receiving the n-3 supplement had fewer ventilator-free days (14.0 vs 17.2; P=.02) (difference, -3.2 [95% CI, -5.8 to -0.7]) and intensive care unit-free days (14.0 vs 16.7; P=.04). Patients in the n-3 group also had fewer nonpulmonary organ failure-free days (12.3 vs 15.5; P=.02). Sixty-day hospital mortality was 26.6% in the n 3 group vs 16.3% in the control group (P=.054), and adjusted 60-day mortality was 25.1% and 17.6% in the n-3 and control groups, respectively (P=.11). Use of the n-3 supplement resulted in more days with diarrhea (29% vs 21%; P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Twice-daily enteral supplementation of n-3 fatty acids, γ-linolenic acid, and antioxidants did not improve the primary end point of ventilator-free days or other clinical outcomes in patients with acute lung injury and may be harmful.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 1%
France 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Singapore 1 1%
Unknown 68 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 21%
Student > Postgraduate 10 14%
Student > Master 8 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 17 24%
Unknown 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 53%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 14 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 November 2012.
All research outputs
#16,721,717
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,380
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#185,873
of 285,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#76
of 110 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 285,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 110 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.