↓ Skip to main content

Oral herbal medicines for psoriasis: A review of clinical studies

Overview of attention for article published in Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, April 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
Title
Oral herbal medicines for psoriasis: A review of clinical studies
Published in
Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, April 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11655-012-1008-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian H. May, Anthony L. Zhang, Wenyu Zhou, Chuan-jian Lu, Shiqiang Deng, Charlie C. L. Xue

Abstract

Various forms of complementary and alternative medicine are used in psoriasis. Among these, herbal medicines are frequently used as systemic and/or topical interventions either as a replacement for or in conjunction with conventional methods. The benefit of such use is unclear. This review is to provide an up-to-date review and discussion of the clinical evidence for the main kinds of herbal therapies for psoriasis. Searches of the biomedical databases PubMed (including MEDLINE), EMBASE and CINAHL were conducted in December 2011 which identified 32 clinical studies, all published in English. Twenty of these primarily tested topical herbal medicines and were thus excluded. The 12 studies that evaluated systemic use of herbal medicines were included in the review. Four were case series studies and the other 8 were controlled trials. In terms of interventions, 4 studies tested the systemic use of plant oils combined with marine oils and 8 studies tested multi-ingredient herbal formulations. The clinical evidence for plant and animal derived fatty acids is inconclusive and any benefit appears to be small. For the multi-herb formulations, benefits of oral herbal medicines were shown in several studies, however, a number of these studies are not controlled trials, a diversity of interventions are tested and there are methodological issues in the controlled studies. In conclusion, there is promising evidence in a number of the studies of multi-herb formulations. However, well-designed, adequately powered studies with proper control interventions are needed to further determine the benefits of these formulations. In addition, syndrome differentiation should be incorporated into trial design to ensure effective translation of findings from these studies into Chinese medicine clinical practice.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Egypt 1 2%
Unknown 56 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Lecturer 4 7%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 9 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 37%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 9 15%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 April 2012.
All research outputs
#18,305,445
of 22,664,267 outputs
Outputs from Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine
#399
of 673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,147
of 160,991 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine
#8
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,267 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 673 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 160,991 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.