↓ Skip to main content

Open-label pilot for treatment targeting gut dysbiosis in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: neuropsychological symptoms and sex comparisons

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Translational Medicine, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
3 blogs
twitter
56 X users
facebook
12 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
179 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
Open-label pilot for treatment targeting gut dysbiosis in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome: neuropsychological symptoms and sex comparisons
Published in
Journal of Translational Medicine, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12967-018-1392-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy Wallis, Michelle Ball, Henry Butt, Donald P. Lewis, Sandra McKechnie, Phillip Paull, Amber Jaa-Kwee, Dorothy Bruck

Abstract

Preliminary evidence suggests that the enteric microbiota may play a role in the expression of neurological symptoms in myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Overlapping symptoms with the acute presentation of D-lactic acidosis has prompted the use of antibiotic treatment to target the overgrowth of species within the Streptococcus genus found in commensal enteric microbiota as a possible treatment for neurological symptoms in ME/CFS. An open-label, repeated measures design was used to examine treatment efficacy and enable sex comparisons. Participants included 44 adult ME/CFS patients (27 females) from one specialist medical clinic with Streptococcus viable counts above 3.00 × 105 cfu/g (wet weight of faeces) and with a count greater than 5% of the total count of aerobic microorganisms. The 4-week treatment protocol included alternate weeks of Erythromycin (400 mg of erythromycin as ethyl succinate salt) twice daily and probiotic (D-lactate free multistrain probiotic, 5 × 1010 cfu twice daily). 2 × 2 repeated measures ANOVAs were used to assess sex-time interactions and effects across pre- and post-intervention for microbial, lactate and clinical outcomes. Ancillary non-parametric correlations were conducted to examine interactions between change in microbiota and clinical outcomes. Large treatment effects were observed for the intention-to-treat sample with a reduction in Streptococcus viable count and improvement on several clinical outcomes including total symptoms, some sleep (less awakenings, greater efficiency and quality) and cognitive symptoms (attention, processing speed, cognitive flexibility, story memory and verbal fluency). Mood, fatigue and urine D:L lactate ratio remained similar across time. Ancillary results infer that shifts in microbiota were associated with more of the variance in clinical changes for males compared with females. Results support the notion that specific microorganisms interact with some ME/CFS symptoms and offer promise for the therapeutic potential of targeting gut dysbiosis in this population. Streptococcus spp. are not the primary or sole producers of D-lactate. Further investigation of lactate concentrations are needed to elucidate any role of D-lactate in this population. Concurrent microbial shifts that may be associated with clinical improvement (i.e., increased Bacteroides and Bifidobacterium or decreased Clostridium in males) invite enquiry into alternative strategies for individualised treatment. Trial Registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12614001077651) 9th October 2014. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=366933&isReview=true.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 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 179 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 179 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 10%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Researcher 16 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 30 17%
Unknown 71 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 23 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 12%
Psychology 12 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 81 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 13 February 2024.
All research outputs
#812,393
of 25,744,802 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#167
of 4,708 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,005
of 448,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#8
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,744,802 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,708 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 448,531 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.