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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The impact of ginsenosides on cognitive deficits in experimental animal studies of Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12906-015-0894-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chenxia Sheng, Weijun Peng, Zi-an Xia, Yang Wang, Zeqi Chen, Nanxiang Su, Zhe Wang |
| Abstract |
The efficacy of ginsenoside treatment on cognitive decline in individuals with Alzheimer's disease (AD) has yet to be investigated. In this protocal, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effect of ginsenosides on cognitive deficits in experimental rodent AD models. We identified eligible studies by searching seven electronic databases spanning from January 1980 to October 2014. We assessed the study quality, evaluated the efficacy of ginsenoside treatment, and performed a stratified meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis to assess the influence of the study design on ginsenoside efficacy. Twelve studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria from a total of 283 publications. The overall methodological quality of these studies was poor. The meta-analysis revealed that ginsenosides have a statistically significant positive effect on cognitive performance in experimental AD models. The stratified analysis revealed that ginsenoside Rg1 had the greatest effect on acquisition and retention memory in AD models. The effect size was significantly higher for both acquisition and retention memory in studies that used female animals compared with male animals. We conclude that ginsenosides might reduce cognitive deficits in AD models. However, additional well-designed and well-reported animal studies are needed to inform further clinical investigations. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 22% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 11% |
| Psychology | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 6 | 17% |
| Unknown | 13 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 30 October 2015.
All research outputs
#4,180,565
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#796
of 3,631 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,544
of 283,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#11
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,631 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 283,719 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 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.