| Title |
Efficacy of chlorophyll c2 for seasonal allergic rhinitis: single-center double-blind randomized control trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00405-016-4133-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Takashi Fujiwara, Naoya Nishida, Jumpei Nota, Takashi Kitani, Kunihide Aoishi, Hirotaka Takahashi, Takuya Sugahara, Naohito Hato |
| Abstract |
Chlorophyll c2 extracted from Sargassum horneri improved allergic symptoms in an animal model of allergic rhinitis. In the present study, we explored the efficacy of chlorophyll c2 in patients with seasonal allergic rhinitis. This was a single-center, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Sixty-six patients aged 20-43 years, each with a 2-year history of seasonal allergic rhinitis, were randomly assigned to receive either a single daily dose (0.7 mg) of chlorophyll c2 or placebo for 12 weeks. The use of medications including H1-antihistamines and topical nasal steroids was recorded by rescue medication scores (RMSs) noted after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. Disease-specific quality of life was measured using the Japan Rhinitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (JRQLQ) both before and after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. The RMS at 8 weeks was significantly better in the chlorophyll c2 than the placebo group (mean RMS difference = -3.09; 95 % confidence interval = -5.96 to -0.22); the mean RMS at 4 weeks was only slightly better in the chlorophyll c2 group. The JRQLQ scores did not differ significantly between the two groups. Chlorophyll c2 would have a potential to be an alternative treatment for allergic rhinitis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Professor | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 22% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 9% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 9 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 September 2021.
All research outputs
#6,306,000
of 22,876,619 outputs
Outputs from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#315
of 3,078 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,123
of 343,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology
#13
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,876,619 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,078 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 343,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.