ArticlePloS one2026
Repurposing landscape of N-acetylcysteine: A scoping review of reviews toward clinical translation.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGrowing interest in drug repurposing and oxidative stress has heightened attention on N‑acetylcysteine (NAC). Despite the abundance of reviews across diverse clinical domains, clinical translation remains limited. This review seeks to map the existing evidence, identify critical gaps, and outline priorities for future research.
methodsFive databases were systematically searched to identify relevant reviews based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Comprehensive data extraction enabled meaningful evidence mapping. To enhance rigor, critical appraisal was conducted using two validated tools assessing methodological quality and risk of bias, thereby allowing stratification of evidence. Additionally, the corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated to detect potential evidence inflation or redundancy.
resultsAmong the 140 retrieved reviews spanning 17 clinical domains, only 63 were systematic reviews with meta‑analysis, representing the highest level of evidence included in this study. Approximately half of these supported NAC repurposing. Beyond its antioxidant, anti‑inflammatory, and glutamatergic modulatory roles, which were most frequently reported, several additional mechanisms have been proposed. The number of NAC reviews has increased over time, with most originating from China and the United States. Appraisals revealed a high prevalence of critically low‑quality systematic reviews, alongside a notable proportion of reviews with low risk of bias. Finally, CCA analysis demonstrated substantial overlap and redundancy across domains, particularly within subdomains.
conclusionThis novel overview mapped the extensive NAC evidence landscape, highlighting its pleiotropic roles and repurposing potential while revealing possible research waste and critical gaps across domains and evidence levels. Psychiatry, reproductive medicine, nephrology, pulmonology, and toxicology emerged as priority clinical domains for future exploration. However, the overall inconsistency in review certainty remains a barrier to the integration of NAC into clinical guidelines. By delineating research priorities and highlighting new avenues, this review underscores the need for precision medicine approaches to guide future NAC clinical implementation and research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.