↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect and safety of ginger in the treatment of pregnancy-associated nausea and vomiting

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#49 of 1,521)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
29 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
twitter
45 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
8 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
q&a
1 Q&A thread
video
13 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
164 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
517 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
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect and safety of ginger in the treatment of pregnancy-associated nausea and vomiting
Published in
Nutrition Journal, March 2014
DOI 10.1186/1475-2891-13-20
Pubmed ID
Authors

Estelle Viljoen, Janicke Visser, Nelene Koen, Alfred Musekiwa

Abstract

Nausea and vomiting during pregnancy (NVP) occur commonly. Possible harmful side-effects of conventional medicine to the fetus create the need for alternative options to relieve NVP. This systematic review (SR) investigated current evidence regarding orally administered ginger for the treatment of NVP. The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of ginger in treating NVP. The secondary objective was to assess the safety of ginger during pregnancy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 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 517 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Australia 2 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Malawi 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 506 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 143 28%
Student > Master 68 13%
Researcher 30 6%
Other 29 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 5%
Other 74 14%
Unknown 148 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 135 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 84 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 43 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 31 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 4%
Other 46 9%
Unknown 156 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 301. 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 23 March 2024.
All research outputs
#115,154
of 25,413,176 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#49
of 1,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#894
of 236,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#1
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,413,176 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 236,842 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 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 99% of its contemporaries.