↓ Skip to main content

Phytotherapy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Overview of attention for article published in Current Urology Reports, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
11 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Phytotherapy for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia
Published in
Current Urology Reports, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s11934-016-0609-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aryeh Keehn, Jacob Taylor, Franklin C. Lowe

Abstract

The use of complementary and alternative medications for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia is a lucrative business in the USA with revenues reaching close to US$6.4 billion in sales for the 2014 fiscal year. Yet, despite its popularity, the evidence supporting the continued use of phytotherapy for symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is questionable and a topic worth investigation given its wide spread use. A comprehensive literature search utilizing Medline and PubMed was conducted to identify literature pertaining to phytotherapy for the management of BPH. Agents with at least modest clinical data were selected for in-depth review including Seronoa repens, Pygeum africanum, Secale cereale, and Hypoxis rooperi. Early clinical trials for each of the agents demonstrated mixed efficacy results with many studies pointing to a possible benefit for phytotherapy. On further examination of these studies, significant confounders such as poor product standardization, study design, and follow-up duration were identified. More recent, larger and more soundly constructed studies found no significant benefit for the use of phytotherapy in the treatment of BPH. Twenty years ago, the urologic community was encouraged by trial results that suggested phytotherapy could effectively treat symptomatic benign prostatic hyperplasia. Since that time, several well-constructed studies have consistently demonstrated that these agents are no more efficacious than placebo, despite being largely safe for ingestion.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Poland 1 2%
Unknown 45 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 6 13%
Other 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 16 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Chemistry 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 19 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 July 2022.
All research outputs
#5,636,570
of 22,925,760 outputs
Outputs from Current Urology Reports
#164
of 591 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#83,296
of 313,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Urology Reports
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,925,760 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 591 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 313,849 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.