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 for patients with vascular cognitive impairment no dementia: protocol for a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010295 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mei Feng, Jingmin Lu, Brian H May, Shaonan Liu, Xinfeng Guo, Anthony Lin Zhang, Charlie Changli Xue, Chuanjian Lu |
| Abstract |
The aim of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine for the treatment of patients with vascular cognitive impairment but no dementia. We will perform a comprehensive retrieval in the following electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System (SinoMed), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP), Wan-fang database and other sources. After screening the studies, the methodological quality of all included trials will be assessed according to the risk of bias instrument provided by the Cochrane Collaboration. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials will be conducted using RevMan V.5.3 software. Funnel plot analysis and Egger's test will be used to assess publication bias, if possible. The quality of evidence will be assessed by the GRADE system. This systematic review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and a relevant conference presentation. PROSPERO CRD 42015023682. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 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 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 53 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 11% |
| Researcher | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 10 | 19% |
| Unknown | 17 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 8 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 7 | 13% |
| Unknown | 21 | 39% |
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 30 March 2016.
All research outputs
#22,759,802
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#23,745
of 25,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,754
of 314,736 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#369
of 387 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,589 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 314,736 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 387 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.