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 |
Comparative efficacy of Chinese herbal injections for treating chronic heart failure: a network meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12906-018-2090-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kai-Huan Wang, Jia-Rui Wu, Dan Zhang, Xiao-Jiao Duan, Meng-Wei Ni |
| Abstract |
On account of deterioration of chronic heart failure (CHF) and extensive exploration of Chinese herbal injections (CHIs), we performed a network meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy of CHIs (Huangqi injection, Shenfu injection, Shengmai injection, Shenmai injection, Shenqi Fuzheng injection, Yiqifumai injection) on the basis of western medicine (WM) treatment in CHF. Literature search was conducted in Embase, the Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Chinese Biological Medicine Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database from inception to June 12nd 2017, and study selection was abided by a prior eligible criteria. Ultimately, a total of 113 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were enrolled. The clinical data of the effective clinical rate, left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac output and others outcomes was estimated by Stata software and Winbugs software. Risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration's tools. Integrating the each outcome's results, a combination of Shengmai injection/Shenmai injection and WM obtain a first rank in most outcomes, particularly primary outcomes. In conclusion, on the basis of WM, Shengmai injection or Shenmai injection may be a perforable treatment in CHF. In terms of insufficient of this study, more high quality RCTs needed to implement to support our conclusions. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 16% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 16% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 44% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 March 2018.
All research outputs
#20,466,701
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,990
of 3,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#377,717
of 440,218 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#81
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,644 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 440,218 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.