↓ Skip to main content

Rat models of acute inflammation: a randomized controlled study on the effects of homeopathic remedies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, January 2007
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 (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
81 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
Rat models of acute inflammation: a randomized controlled study on the effects of homeopathic remedies
Published in
BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, January 2007
DOI 10.1186/1472-6882-7-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anita Conforti, Paolo Bellavite, Simone Bertani, Flavia Chiarotti, Francesca Menniti-Ippolito, Roberto Raschetti

Abstract

One of the cardinal principles of homeopathy is the "law of similarities", according to which patients can be treated by administering substances which, when tested in healthy subjects, cause symptoms that are similar to those presented by the patients themselves. Over the last few years, there has been an increase in the number of pre-clinical (in vitro and animal) studies aimed at evaluating the pharmacological activity or efficacy of some homeopathic remedies under potentially reproducible conditions. However, in addition to some contradictory results, these studies have also highlighted a series of methodological difficulties.The present study was designed to explore the possibility to test in a controlled way the effects of homeopathic remedies on two known experimental models of acute inflammation in the rat. To this aim, the study considered six different remedies indicated by homeopathic practice for this type of symptom in two experimental edema models (carrageenan- and autologous blood-induced edema), using two treatment administration routes (sub-plantar injection and oral administration).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 81 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 80 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 16%
Other 12 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 14%
Student > Master 10 12%
Researcher 7 9%
Other 19 23%
Unknown 9 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 10 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 22 January 2020.
All research outputs
#1,205,142
of 17,360,236 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#205
of 2,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,603
of 162,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,360,236 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,974 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 162,187 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them