↓ Skip to main content

Traditional use of medicinal plants in south-central Zimbabwe: review and perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#9 of 694)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
12 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
145 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
478 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
Traditional use of medicinal plants in south-central Zimbabwe: review and perspectives
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1746-4269-9-31
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alfred Maroyi

Abstract

Traditional medicine has remained as the most affordable and easily accessible source of treatment in the primary healthcare system of resource poor communities in Zimbabwe. The local people have a long history of traditional plant usage for medicinal purposes. Despite the increasing acceptance of traditional medicine in Zimbabwe, this rich indigenous knowledge is not adequately documented. Documentation of plants used as traditional medicines is needed so that the knowledge can be preserved and the utilized plants conserved and used sustainably. The primary objective of this paper is to summarize information on traditional uses of medicinal plants in south-central Zimbabwe, identifying research gaps and suggesting perspectives for future research.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 478 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Botswana 1 <1%
Cameroon 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Mauritius 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 467 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 119 25%
Student > Master 80 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 75 16%
Researcher 33 7%
Student > Postgraduate 27 6%
Other 77 16%
Unknown 67 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 107 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 62 13%
Chemistry 59 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 36 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 34 7%
Other 94 20%
Unknown 86 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 12 June 2021.
All research outputs
#607,115
of 18,846,561 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#9
of 694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,050
of 166,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,846,561 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 694 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 98% 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 166,918 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 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