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 |
Seeing the unseen of Chinese herbal medicine processing (Paozhi): advances in new perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Chinese Medicine, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13020-018-0163-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xu Wu, Shengpeng Wang, Junrong Lu, Yong Jing, Mingxing Li, Jiliang Cao, Baolin Bian, Changjiang Hu |
| Abstract |
Processing (Paozhi) represents a unique Chinese pharmaceutic technique to facilitate the use of Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) for a specific clinical need in the guidance of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) theory. Traditionally, most CHMs require a proper processing to meet the needs of specific clinical syndromes before being prescribed by TCM practitioners. During processing, significant changes in chemical profiles occur, which inevitably influence the associated pharmacological properties of a CHM. However, although processing is formed in a long-term practice, the underlying mechanisms remain unclear for most CHMs. The deepening understanding of the mechanism of processing would provide scientific basis for standardization of processing. This review introduced the role of processing in TCM and several typical methods of processing. We also summarized the up-to-date efforts on the mechanistic study of CHM processing. The processing mechanisms mainly include the following aspects: (i) directly reducing contents of toxic constituents; (ii) structural transformation of constituents; (iii) improving solubility of constituents; (iv) physically changing the existing form of constituents; (v) and influence by excipients. These progress may give new insights into future researches. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 57 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 26% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 5% |
| Professor | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 27 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 27 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 27 March 2020.
All research outputs
#8,538,940
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Chinese Medicine
#170
of 660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,347
of 451,258 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chinese Medicine
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% 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 451,258 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.