↓ Skip to main content

Effects of gum Arabic ingestion on body mass index and body fat percentage in healthy adult females: two-arm randomized, placebo controlled, double-blind trial

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#39 of 1,438)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
26 news outlets
twitter
127 tweeters
facebook
22 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
3 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
207 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
Effects of gum Arabic ingestion on body mass index and body fat percentage in healthy adult females: two-arm randomized, placebo controlled, double-blind trial
Published in
Nutrition Journal, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/1475-2891-11-111
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rasha Babiker, Tarig H Merghani, Khalifa Elmusharaf, Rehab M Badi, Florian Lang, Amal M Saeed

Abstract

Gum Arabic (acacia Senegal) is a complex polysaccharide indigestible to both humans and animals. It has been considered as a safe dietary fiber by the United States, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since the 1970s. Although its effects were extensively studied in animals, there is paucity of data regarding its quantified use in humans. This study was conducted to determine effects of regular Gum Arabic (GA) ingestion on body mass index and body fat percentage among healthy adult females.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 127 tweeters 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 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Jordan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 205 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 16%
Student > Bachelor 28 14%
Researcher 26 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 12%
Other 11 5%
Other 33 16%
Unknown 51 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Other 46 22%
Unknown 63 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 318. 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 03 August 2022.
All research outputs
#89,392
of 23,063,209 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#39
of 1,438 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#516
of 280,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#4
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,063,209 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,438 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 280,711 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.