↓ Skip to main content

Single amino acid supplementation in aminoacidopathies: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 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
Single amino acid supplementation in aminoacidopathies: a systematic review
Published in
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1750-1172-9-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danique van Vliet, Terry GJ Derks, Margreet van Rijn, Martijn J de Groot, Anita MacDonald, M Rebecca Heiner-Fokkema, Francjan J van Spronsen

Abstract

Aminoacidopathies are a group of rare and diverse disorders, caused by the deficiency of an enzyme or transporter involved in amino acid metabolism. For most aminoacidopathies, dietary management is the mainstay of treatment. Such treatment includes severe natural protein restriction, combined with protein substitution with all amino acids except the amino acids prior to the metabolic block and enriched with the amino acid that has become essential by the enzymatic defect. For some aminoacidopathies, supplementation of one or two amino acids, that have not become essential by the enzymatic defect, has been suggested. This so-called single amino acid supplementation can serve different treatment objectives, but evidence is limited. The aim of the present article is to provide a systematic review on the reasons for applications of single amino acid supplementation in aminoacidopathies treated with natural protein restriction and synthetic amino acid mixtures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Student > Master 12 16%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Other 5 7%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 20 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 8%
Chemistry 6 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 20 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 January 2014.
All research outputs
#7,194,603
of 22,739,983 outputs
Outputs from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#1,037
of 2,605 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,008
of 306,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
#29
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,739,983 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,605 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 306,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 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 50% of its contemporaries.