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 |
The effectiveness and efficacy of Rhodiola rosea L.: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Phytomedicine, October 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.phymed.2010.08.014 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shao Kang Hung, Rachel Perry, Edzard Ernst |
| Abstract |
To critically assess the current evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for or against the effectiveness or efficacy of Rhodiola rosea. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 18% |
| Japan | 2 | 12% |
| Spain | 2 | 12% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| Finland | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 71% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 24% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 5 | 2% |
| United States | 3 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Poland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 276 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 66 | 23% |
| Researcher | 41 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 36 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 21 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 7% |
| Other | 56 | 19% |
| Unknown | 48 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 77 | 27% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 51 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 24 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 23 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 14 | 5% |
| Other | 45 | 16% |
| Unknown | 54 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 71. 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 January 2024.
All research outputs
#598,098
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Phytomedicine
#51
of 2,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,624
of 109,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Phytomedicine
#2
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,787 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 109,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.