↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the antimicrobial activity of Ulmo honey from Chile and Manuka honey against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, September 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
216 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
352 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Comparison of the antimicrobial activity of Ulmo honey from Chile and Manuka honey against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, September 2010
DOI 10.1186/1472-6882-10-47
Pubmed ID
Authors

Orla Sherlock, Anthony Dolan, Rahma Athman, Alice Power, Georgina Gethin, Seamus Cowman, Hilary Humphreys

Abstract

Honey has previously been shown to have wound healing and antimicrobial properties, but this is dependent on the type of honey, geographical location and flower from which the final product is derived. We tested the antimicrobial activity of a Chilean honey made by Apis mellifera (honeybee) originating from the Ulmo tree (Eucryphia cordifolia), against selected strains of bacteria.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 352 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Lebanon 1 <1%
Unknown 344 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 76 22%
Student > Master 53 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 12%
Researcher 24 7%
Other 21 6%
Other 46 13%
Unknown 90 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 80 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 46 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 21 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 5%
Other 59 17%
Unknown 102 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 06 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,891,058
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#750
of 3,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,411
of 108,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,998 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 108,527 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.