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 |
Chinese Herbal Medicine (Weijing Decoction) Combined with Pharmacotherapy for the Treatment of Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM), August 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1155/2014/257012 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shaonan Liu, Johannah Shergis, Xiankun Chen, Xuhua Yu, Xinfeng Guo, Anthony Lin Zhang, Chuanjian Lu, Charlie Changli Xue |
| Abstract |
Objective. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Weijing decoction combined with routine pharmacotherapy (RP) for the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD). Methods. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating Weijing decoction for AECOPD were included. English, Chinese, and Japanese databases were searched from their respective inceptions to June 2013. The methodological quality was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. All data were analyzed and synthesized using RevMan 5.2 software. Results. Fifteen (15) studies involving 986 participants were included. Participants were diagnosed with COPD in the acute exacerbation stage. In addition, most of studies reported that they included participants with the Chinese medicine syndrome, phlegm-heat obstructing the Lung. Weijing decoction combined with RP improved lung function (forced expiratory volume in one second; FEV1), arterial blood gases (PaO2 and PaCO2), clinical effective rate, and reduced inflammatory biomarkers (TNF-α and IL-8) when compared with RP alone. No severe adverse events were reported in these studies. Conclusions. Weijing decoction appeared to be beneficial for AECOPD and well-tolerated when taken concurrently with RP, such as antibiotics, bronchodilators (oral and inhaled), and mucolytics. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 25 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 23% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 54% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 4 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 November 2014.
All research outputs
#19,962,154
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM)
#4,647
of 9,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,667
of 241,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM)
#58
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 241,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.