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 |
Forensic problems with the composition and content of herbal medicines
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Forensic & Legal Medicine, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jflm.2014.01.008 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lauren Blacksell, Roger W. Byard, Ian F. Musgrave |
| Abstract |
A survey of herbal medicines available for internet and over-the-counter purchase in South Australia, Australia, was conducted looking specifically at those used for 'arthritis', 'cold and flu', 'gastrointestinal', 'stress' and 'premenstrual syndrome'. 121 products consisted of 29 in the 'arthritis' category, 33 in 'cold and flu', 19 in 'gastrointestinal' 30 in 'stress' and 10 in 'premenstrual syndrome'. Twenty two (18%) of 121 products were not registered with the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG), despite this being a legal requirement for their sale. Of the registered products 59 (60%) of 99 had differing ingredient concentrations on the website compared to their ARTG listing. Only three of the 15 purchased products had ingredient concentrations which were consistent between the website, ARTG listing and product packaging. These findings demonstrate that it may not be possible to determine what herbal substance an individual has been exposed to prior to death and in what concentration, based on packaging from medications seized at the scene, or from examination of website data and the ARTG listing. These discrepancies may increase the problems that exist in attempting to determine what role herbal medicines may play in the mechanism of death in certain forensic cases. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 3 | 75% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Portugal | 2 | 7% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Ghana | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 24 | 83% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 17% |
| Other | 4 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 17% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 10% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 28% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 25 July 2014.
All research outputs
#984,817
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Forensic & Legal Medicine
#42
of 1,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,742
of 321,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Forensic & Legal Medicine
#1
of 25 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 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,185 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 321,549 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 96% of its contemporaries.