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
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Melatonin and health: an umbrella review of health outcomes and biological mechanisms of action
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12916-017-1000-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pawel P. Posadzki, Ram Bajpai, Bhone Myint Kyaw, Nicola J. Roberts, Amnon Brzezinski, George I. Christopoulos, Ushashree Divakar, Shweta Bajpai, Michael Soljak, Gerard Dunleavy, Krister Jarbrink, Ei Ei Khaing Nang, Chee Kiong Soh, Josip Car |
| Abstract |
Our aims were to evaluate critically the evidence from systematic reviews as well as narrative reviews of the effects of melatonin (MLT) on health and to identify the potential mechanisms of action involved. An umbrella review of the evidence across systematic reviews and narrative reviews of endogenous and exogenous (supplementation) MLT was undertaken. The Oxman checklist for assessing the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was utilised. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CENTRAL, PsycINFO and CINAHL. In addition, reference lists were screened. We included reviews of the effects of MLT on any type of health-related outcome measure. Altogether, 195 reviews met the inclusion criteria. Most were of low methodological quality (mean -4.5, standard deviation 6.7). Of those, 164 did not pool the data and were synthesised narratively (qualitatively) whereas the remaining 31 used meta-analytic techniques and were synthesised quantitatively. Seven meta-analyses were significant with P values less than 0.001 under the random-effects model. These pertained to sleep latency, pre-operative anxiety, prevention of agitation and risk of breast cancer. There is an abundance of reviews evaluating the effects of exogenous and endogenous MLT on health. In general, MLT has been shown to be associated with a wide variety of health outcomes in clinically and methodologically heterogeneous populations. Many reviews stressed the need for more high-quality randomised clinical trials to reduce the existing uncertainties. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 24% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 24% |
| Spain | 2 | 8% |
| Japan | 1 | 4% |
| Singapore | 1 | 4% |
| Australia | 1 | 4% |
| Poland | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 7 | 28% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 16 | 64% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 24% |
| Scientists | 3 | 12% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 206 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 30 | 15% |
| Researcher | 28 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 39 | 19% |
| Unknown | 57 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 18 | 9% |
| Psychology | 14 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 40 | 19% |
| Unknown | 63 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. 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 05 April 2024.
All research outputs
#636,557
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#458
of 4,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,991
of 452,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#8
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 46.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 452,380 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 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.