↓ Skip to main content

Obesity and Clinical Riskiness Relationship: Therapeutic Management by Dietary Antioxidant Supplementation—a Review

Overview of attention for article published in Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, April 2015
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 (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
Title
Obesity and Clinical Riskiness Relationship: Therapeutic Management by Dietary Antioxidant Supplementation—a Review
Published in
Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12010-015-1602-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hanaa A. Hassan, Nermin E. El-Gharib

Abstract

Obesity is a global health problem affecting all age groups, leading to many complications such as type 2 diabetes, systemic hypertension, cardiovascular disease, dyslipidemia, atherosclerosis, and stroke. Physiologically, obesity arises from metabolic changes in the tissues and organs of the human body; these changes result in an imbalance between energy intake and energy expenditure, which in turn results in increased fat accumulation in adipose tissue. Such fat accumulation predisposes individuals to development of several health problems. Two different obesity treatment drugs are currently on the market; Orlistat, which reduces intestinal fat absorption via inhibiting pancreatic lipase, and Sibutramine, an anorectic or appetite suppressant. Both drugs have hazardous side effects, including increased blood pressure, dry mouth, constipation, headache, and insomnia. For this reason, a wide variety of natural materials have been explored for their obesity treatment potential. Therefore, the present review focuses on the safety and efficacy of some herbal medicines in the management of obesity through covering their beneficial effects and mechanism of action.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 131 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Master 16 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Other 28 21%
Unknown 42 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 5%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 48 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 April 2023.
All research outputs
#4,354,734
of 23,572,442 outputs
Outputs from Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology
#181
of 2,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,055
of 266,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology
#3
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,572,442 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,566 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 266,056 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 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 94% of its contemporaries.