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
| Title |
A comparative study on the traditional Indian Shodhana and Chinese processing methods for aconite roots by characterization and determination of the major components
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Chemistry, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1752-153x-7-169 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yogini Jaiswal, Zhitao Liang, Peng Yong, Hubiao Chen, Zhongzhen Zhao |
| Abstract |
Aconitum is an indispensable entity of the traditional medicine therapy in Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), in spite of its known fatal toxicity characteristics. The prolonged use of this drug, irrespective of its known lethal effects, is governed by the practice of effective detoxification processes that have been used for decades. However, the processing methods of Ayurveda and TCM are different, and no comparative study has been carried out to evaluate their differences.The objective of the present study was to carry out comparative chemical profiling of the roots of Aconitum heterophyllum Wall, A. carmichaelii Debx., and A. kusnezoffii Reichb. after application of two detoxification methods used in Ayurveda and one method used in TCM . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Hong Kong | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 34 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 20% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |