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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Chinese herbal medicine for the treatment of primary hypertension: a methodology overview of systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, October 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-016-0353-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Zhao Xinke, Li Yingdong, Feng Mingxia, Liu Kai, Chen Kaibing, Lu Yuqing, Sun Shaobo, Song Peng, Liu Bin |
| Abstract |
Chinese herbal medicine has been used to treat hypertension in China and East Asia since centuries. In this study, we conduct an overview of systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicine in the treatment of primary hypertension to 1) summarize the conclusions of these reviews, 2) evaluate the methodological quality of these reviews, and 3) rate the confidence in the effect on each outcome. We comprehensively searched six databases to retrieve systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicine for primary hypertension from inception to December 31, 2015. We used AMSTAR to evaluate the methodological quality of included reviews, and we classified the quality of evidence for each outcome in included reviews using the GRADE approach. A total of 12 systematic reviews with 31 outcomes were included, among which 11 systematic reviews focus on the therapeutic effect of Chinese herbal medicine combined with conventional medicine or simple Chinese herbal medicine versus simple conventional medicine. Among the 11 items of AMSTAR, the lowest quality was "providing a priori design" item, none review conformed to this item, the next was "stating the conflict of interest" item, only three reviews conformed to this item. Five reviews scored less than seven in AMSTAR, which means that the overall methodological quality was fairly poor. For GRADE, of the 31 outcomes, the quality of evidence was high in none (0 %), moderate in three (10 %), low in 19 (61 %), and very low in nine (29 %). Of the five downgrading factors, risk of bias (100 %) was the most common downgrading factor in the included reviews, followed by imprecision (42 %), inconsistency (39 %), publication bias (39 %), and indirectness (0 %). The methodological quality of systematic reviews about Chinese herbal medicine for primary hypertension is fairly poor, and the quality of evidence level is low. Physicians should be cautious when applying the interventions in these reviews for primary hypertension patients in clinical practice. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chile | 1 | 14% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 5 | 71% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 29% |
| Scientists | 1 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 38 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Librarian | 2 | 5% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 23% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
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 02 November 2016.
All research outputs
#6,396,360
of 22,896,955 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,196
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,121
of 315,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#25
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,896,955 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 315,898 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 68% 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 is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.