↓ Skip to main content

Why study the use of animal products in traditional medicines?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, August 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
172 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
248 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
Why study the use of animal products in traditional medicines?
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, August 2005
DOI 10.1186/1746-4269-1-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rômulo RN Alves, Ierecê L Rosa

Abstract

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that as many as 80% of the world's more than six billion people rely primarily on animal and plant-based medicines. The healing of human ailments by using therapeutics based on medicines obtained from animals or ultimately derived from them is known as zootherapy. The phenomenon of zootherapy is marked both by a broad geographical distribution and very deep historical origins. Despite their importance, studies on the therapeutic use of animals and animal parts have been neglected, when compared to plants. This paper discusses some related aspects of the use of animals or parts thereof as medicines, and their implications for ecology, culture (the traditional knowledge), economy, and public health.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 248 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 4 2%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Uganda 1 <1%
Malawi 1 <1%
Zimbabwe 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 238 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 56 23%
Student > Bachelor 33 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 13%
Researcher 30 12%
Student > Postgraduate 18 7%
Other 44 18%
Unknown 36 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 93 38%
Environmental Science 34 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 7%
Social Sciences 12 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 4%
Other 31 13%
Unknown 51 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 09 December 2020.
All research outputs
#2,073,633
of 19,659,155 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#51
of 668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,825
of 171,813 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#5
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,659,155 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 171,813 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 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 91% of its contemporaries.