↓ Skip to main content

Which potential harms and benefits of using ginger in the management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy should be addressed? a consensual study among pregnant women and gynecologists

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, April 2017
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
1 X user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
116 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
Which potential harms and benefits of using ginger in the management of nausea and vomiting of pregnancy should be addressed? a consensual study among pregnant women and gynecologists
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, April 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12906-017-1717-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ramzi Shawahna, Assim Taha

Abstract

Nausea and vomiting of pregnancy (NVP) affect approximately 80-90% of the pregnant women. Ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe) is the most widely used herbal therapy in the management of NVP. Like conventional therapies, herbal therapies have potential harms and benefits that patients need to be informed about in order to develop their therapy preferences. The aim of this study was to achieve consensus among women who suffered NVP and physicians often consulted by pregnant women on a core list of potential harms and benefits of using ginger to manage NVP to be addressed during clinical consultations. In this study, the Delphi technique was used to achieve consensus on a core list of important harms and benefits of using ginger in the management of NVP to be addressed during the clinical consultation. A Delphi process was followed in two panels in parallel sessions. One panel was composed of 50 gynecologists and other physicians who are often consulted by pregnant women suffering NVP and the other panel was composed of 50 women who suffered NVP. Consensus was achieved on 21 (75%) of the 28 potential harms presented to the panelists. Panelists agreed that potential harms of the anticoagulant effects of ginger, risk with other co-morbidities, and risk of potential allergic reactions are important to address during the clinical consultation. Of the 14 potential benefits presented to the panelists in both panels, consensus was achieved on 13 (92.9%). Partial consensus on 7 potential harms and 1 potential benefit was achieved in both panels. Addressing important potential harms and benefits of using ginger for the management of NVP during the clinical consultations is important in promoting congruence and reducing patient dissatisfaction in clinical practice. Consensus was achieved on a core list of important harms and benefits of using ginger for the management of NVP to be addressed during the clinical consultations by a panel of women and a panel of physicians. Further studies are still needed to investigate what is being addressed during clinical consultations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 116 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 17%
Student > Master 11 9%
Lecturer 6 5%
Researcher 5 4%
Other 5 4%
Other 17 15%
Unknown 52 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 57 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 2023.
All research outputs
#1,307,389
of 23,848,132 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#208
of 3,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,119
of 312,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#3
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,848,132 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,748 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 312,507 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.