↓ Skip to main content

N-acetylcysteine for non-paracetamol drug-induced liver injury: a systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
N-acetylcysteine for non-paracetamol drug-induced liver injury: a systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0075-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamed Farouk Chughlay, Nicole Kramer, Mahmoud Werfalli, Wendy Spearman, Mark Emmanuel Engel, Karen Cohen

Abstract

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) refers to acute or chronic liver injury that may occur as a consequence of using drugs and herbal or dietary supplements. Specific therapies for DILI are limited. There is considerable evidence for efficacy and safety of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) in management of paracetamol-induced liver injury. More recently, research has explored the use of NAC in non-paracetamol drug-induced liver injury. It is important to summarise the evidence of NAC for non-paracetamol DILI to determine if NAC may be considered a therapeutic option in this condition. We will conduct a systematic review of the benefit and harm of NAC in non-paracetamol drug-induced liver injury. Primary and secondary outcomes of interest are pre-specified. Primary outcomes include all-cause mortality, mortality due to DILI, time to normalisation of liver biochemistry (e.g. return of alanine transaminase to <100 U/l and/or international normalized ratio (INR) <1.5) and adverse events. Secondary outcomes include transplantation rate, time to transplantation, transplant-free survival and duration of hospitalisation. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies. RCTs will contribute to the evaluation of safety and efficacy of NAC, whereas, the cohort studies will contribute exclusively to the evaluation of safety. We will search several bibliographic databases (including PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, CENTRAL), grey literature sources, conference proceedings and ongoing trials. Following data extraction and assessment of the risk of bias, we will conduct a meta-analysis if feasible, as well as subgroup analyses. We will assess and explore clinical and statistical heterogeneity. The aim of this review is to provide evidence on the effectiveness and safety of NAC in non-paracetamol DILI. We anticipate that the results could aid health care practitioners, researchers and policymakers in the decision-making regarding the use of NAC in patients with non-paracetamol DILI. PROSPERO CRD42014008771.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 10 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 36%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 14%
Chemistry 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 11 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 26 May 2017.
All research outputs
#15,460,734
of 22,974,684 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,597
of 2,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,847
of 265,372 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#26
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,974,684 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 265,372 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.