↓ Skip to main content

Perioperative Risks of Dietary and Herbal Supplements

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, November 2016
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 (80th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Perioperative Risks of Dietary and Herbal Supplements
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00268-016-3825-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ilana Levy, Samuel Attias, Eran Ben‐Arye, Lee Goldstein, Ibrahim Matter, Mostafa Somri, Elad Schiff

Abstract

Patients undergoing surgery often use Dietary and Herbal Supplements (DHS). We explored the risk of DHS-drug interactions in the perioperative setting. In this cross-sectional prospective study, participants hospitalized for surgery completed a questionnaire regarding DHS use. We used pharmacological databases to assess DHS-drug interactions. We then applied univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to characterize patients at risk for DHS-drug interactions. Of 526 interviewees, 230 (44%) patients reported DHS use, with 16.5% reporting using DHS that could potentially interact with anesthesia. Twenty-four (10%) patients used DHS that could potentially interact with antithrombotic drugs taken perioperatively. The medical files of three patients included reports of intraoperative bleeding. The patient files of only 11% of DHS users documented DHS use. DHS use poses a significant health risk due to potential interactions. Guidelines should emphasize perioperative management of DHS use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 34%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Master 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 7 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 2019.
All research outputs
#4,108,272
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#671
of 4,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,598
of 415,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#24
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 415,884 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 80% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.