↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacotherapies for fatigue in chronic liver disease (CLD): a systematic review and meta-analysis (protocol)

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Pharmacotherapies for fatigue in chronic liver disease (CLD): a systematic review and meta-analysis (protocol)
Published in
Systematic Reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0688-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andem Effiong, Prerna Kumari

Abstract

This is the protocol for a systematic review (and meta-analysis) of an intervention. The primary objective of this systematic review will be to assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological therapies (pharmacotherapies) for the management of fatigue in adults with CLD of any etiology. The effects of pharmacological therapies on fatigue in CLD will be compared against those of placebo, no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions. Specifically, this review will examine whether pharmacological therapies improve CLD-associated fatigue, and if they do, what key elements are associated with their effectiveness. The results of this systematic review will assist clinicians, policy-makers, researchers, and people with CLD in decision-making on how best to manage fatigue and its associated symptoms. MEDLINE, SCOPUS, EMBASE, EU Clinical Trials Register, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library), ClinicalTrials.gov, reference lists of articles and conference proceedings will be searched for relevant studies. No language or date restrictions will be applied. Eligible studies will include adults with CLD of any etiology. Included studies will be randomized controlled trials. From included studies, data on participant characteristics, study design, setting, research ethics compliance, and intervention outcomes will be extracted. Risk of bias in included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. A random-effects meta-analysis will be conducted. If substantial or considerable levels of heterogeneity are detected, analysis will be limited to a narrative synthesis. This systematic review will examine the effectiveness of pharmacological therapies on fatigue reduction in people with CLD. Such therapies may be more effective than non-pharmacological interventions in treating fatigue symptoms in CLD. Evidence derived from the findings of this study will guide future practice, policy, and research. PROSPERO, CRD42017076957.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 14%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 8 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 10%
Engineering 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 5%
Other 5 24%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 February 2018.
All research outputs
#5,809,727
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#992
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,164
of 446,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#31
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 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 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 446,267 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.