↓ Skip to main content

Systematic Review of Human and Animal Studies Examining the Efficacy and Safety of N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) and N-Acetylcysteine Amide (NACA) in Traumatic Brain Injury: Impact on Neurofunctional…

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Systematic Review of Human and Animal Studies Examining the Efficacy and Safety of N-Acetylcysteine (NAC) and N-Acetylcysteine Amide (NACA) in Traumatic Brain Injury: Impact on Neurofunctional Outcome and Biomarkers of Oxidative Stress and Inflammation
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00744
Pubmed ID
Authors

Junaid Bhatti, Barto Nascimento, Umbreen Akhtar, Shawn G. Rhind, Homer Tien, Avery Nathens, Luis Teodoro da Luz

Abstract

No new therapies for traumatic brain injury (TBI) have been officially translated into current practice. At the tissue and cellular level, both inflammatory and oxidative processes may be exacerbated post-injury and contribute to further brain damage. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has the potential to downregulate both processes. This review focuses on the potential neuroprotective utility of NAC and N-acetylcysteine amide (NACA) post-TBI. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to July 2017. Studies that examined clinical and laboratory effects of NAC and NACA post-TBI in human and animal studies were included. Risk of bias was assessed in human and animal studies according to the design of each study (randomized or not). The primary outcome assessed was the effect of NAC/NACA treatment on functional outcome, while secondary outcomes included the impact on biomarkers of inflammation and oxidation. Due to the clinical and methodological heterogeneity observed across studies, no meta-analyses were conducted. Our analyses revealed only three human trials, including two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 20 animal studies conducted using standardized animal models of brain injury. The two RCTs reported improvement in the functional outcome post-NAC/NACA administration. Overall, the evidence from animal studies is more robust and demonstrated substantial improvement of cognition and psychomotor performance following NAC/NACA use. Animal studies also reported significantly more cortical sparing, reduced apoptosis, and lower levels of biomarkers of inflammation and oxidative stress. No safety concerns were reported in any of the studies included in this analysis. Evidence from the animal literature demonstrates a robust association for the prophylactic application of NAC and NACA post-TBI with improved neurofunctional outcomes and downregulation of inflammatory and oxidative stress markers at the tissue level. While a growing body of scientific literature suggests putative beneficial effects of NAC/NACA treatment for TBI, the lack of well-designed and controlled clinical investigations, evaluating therapeutic outcomes, prognostic biomarkers, and safety profiles, limits definitive interpretation and recommendations for its application in humans at this time.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 37 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 19%
Neuroscience 17 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Engineering 4 4%
Other 21 18%
Unknown 40 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 14 February 2020.
All research outputs
#6,283,212
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,169
of 12,531 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,496
of 476,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#45
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,531 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 476,553 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.