↓ Skip to main content

Arnica montana gel in osteoarthritis of the knee: An open, multicenter clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Therapy, September 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#45 of 2,397)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
5 X users
patent
3 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
Title
Arnica montana gel in osteoarthritis of the knee: An open, multicenter clinical trial
Published in
Advances in Therapy, September 2002
DOI 10.1007/bf02850361
Pubmed ID
Authors

Otto Knuesel, Michel Weber, Andy Suter

Abstract

This open multicenter trial investigated the safety and efficacy of an Arnica montana fresh plant gel, applied twice daily, in 26 men and 53 women with mild to moderate osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. After 3 and 6 weeks, significant decreases in median total scores on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were evident in the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations (both P < .0001). Scores on the pain, stiffness, and function subscales also showed significant reductions at these timepoints. The overall local adverse-event rate of 7.6% included only one allergic reaction. Sixty-nine patients (87%) rated the tolerability of the gel as "good" or "fairly good," and 76% would use it again. Topical application of Arnica montana gel for 6 weeks was a safe, well-tolerated, and effective treatment of mild to moderate OA of the knee.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 76 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 17%
Student > Master 11 14%
Researcher 9 12%
Other 5 6%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 20 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 29%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 24 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 66. 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 15 September 2022.
All research outputs
#569,960
of 23,339,727 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Therapy
#45
of 2,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#384
of 46,070 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Therapy
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,339,727 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 2,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. 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 46,070 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them