↓ Skip to main content

Chinese Herbal Medicine for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Cognitive Outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Phytotherapy Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
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.
Title
Chinese Herbal Medicine for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Cognitive Outcomes
Published in
Phytotherapy Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/ptr.5679
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lin Dong, Brian H May, Mei Feng, Anna J Hyde, Hsiewe Ying Tan, Xinfeng Guo, Anthony Lin Zhang, Chuanjian Lu, Charlie Changli Xue

Abstract

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a condition that may be prodromal to the development of dementia. There remain, as yet, no approved pharmaceutical interventions for MCI. Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) have a long history of use for cognitive impairments and some plant ingredients have shown neuroprotective actions in experimental studies. This review assesses the current clinical evidence from controlled clinical trials for the effects of CHMs on cognitive outcomes as measured by Mini-mental state examination (MMSE) or Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive subscale (ADAS-Cog). Fifty one studies (4026 participants) were included. These compared CHM with placebo, supportive care, pharmaceutical treatment or combined CHM with a pharmaceutical in an integrative setting. For the eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of comparisons with placebo, MMSE was significantly higher in the CHM groups (MD 1.56 [0.78, 2.34] I(2)  = 85%, n = 503), similarly for eight RCTs of comparisons with supportive care (MD 1.77 [1.33, 2.21] I(2)  = 0%, n = 555). Benefits were also evident in comparisons with some pharmaceuticals and with integrative treatment. The small size of most studies and methodological weaknesses mean that these results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies employing rigorous methods are required to investigate the potential benefits of these CHMs for MCI. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Master 5 8%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 22 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Psychology 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 25 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,760,539
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Phytotherapy Research
#346
of 3,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,956
of 371,025 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Phytotherapy Research
#5
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 371,025 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.