↓ Skip to main content

Potential traditional Chinese medicines with anti-inflammation in the prevention of heart failure following myocardial infarction

Overview of attention for article published in Chinese Medicine, March 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
11 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
Potential traditional Chinese medicines with anti-inflammation in the prevention of heart failure following myocardial infarction
Published in
Chinese Medicine, March 2023
DOI 10.1186/s13020-023-00732-w
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhen Zhang, Fei Chen, Jingjing Wan, Xia Liu

Abstract

Inflammation plays an important role in the development of heart failure (HF) after myocardial infarction (MI). Suppression of post-infarction inflammatory cascade has become a new strategy to delay or block the progression of HF. At present, there are no approved anti-inflammatory drugs used to prevent HF following MI. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been used clinically for cardiovascular disease for a long time. Here, we summarized the recent progress about some TCM which could both improve cardiac function and inhibit inflammation in patients or experimental models with MI or HF, in order to provide evidence for their potential application in reducing the onset of HF following MI. Among them, single Chinese medicinal herbs (eg. Astragalus and Salvia miltiorrhiza) and Chinese herbal formulas (eg. Gualou Xiebai Decoction and Sini Tang) are discussed separately. The main targets for their anti-inflammation effect are mainly involved the TLR4/NF-κB signaling, as well as pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1β, IL-6 or TNF-α. It is worthy of further evaluating their potential, experimentally or clinically, in the prevention or delay of HF following MI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 1 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 9%
Lecturer 1 9%
Other 1 9%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 6 55%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 18%
Chemical Engineering 1 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Unspecified 1 9%
Unknown 6 55%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 March 2023.
All research outputs
#16,737,737
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Chinese Medicine
#279
of 660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,765
of 435,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chinese Medicine
#9
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 435,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.