| Title |
Contamination and adulteration of herbal medicinal products (HMPs): an overview of systematic reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00228-012-1353-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Paul Posadzki, Leala Watson, Edzard Ernst |
| Abstract |
The aim of this overview of systematic reviews is to summarise and critically evaluate the evidence from systematic reviews of the adulteration and contamination of herbal medicinal products (HMPs). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 19% |
| United States | 5 | 14% |
| Canada | 5 | 14% |
| Spain | 2 | 5% |
| Djibouti | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 24 | 65% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 16% |
| Scientists | 5 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 265 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Korea, Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 262 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 44 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 39 | 15% |
| Researcher | 33 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 29 | 11% |
| Other | 21 | 8% |
| Other | 40 | 15% |
| Unknown | 59 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 17% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 37 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 30 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 29 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 6% |
| Other | 37 | 14% |
| Unknown | 71 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 11 August 2022.
All research outputs
#746,690
of 24,143,470 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#29
of 2,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,831
of 167,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,143,470 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,658 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. 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 167,285 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 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 96% of its contemporaries.