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 |
Anti-Inflammatory and Antinociceptive Activities of Untreated, Germinated, and Fermented Mung Bean Aqueous Extract
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM), June 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1155/2014/350507 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Norlaily Mohd Ali, Hamidah Mohd Yusof, Swee-Keong Yeap, Wan-Yong Ho, Boon-Kee Beh, Kamariah Long, Soo-Peng Koh, Mohd Puad Abdullah, Noorjahan Banu Alitheen |
| Abstract |
Evaluation of anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive activities of untreated mung bean (MB), germinated mung bean (GMB), and fermented mung bean (FMB) was performed on both in vitro (inhibition of inflammatory mediator, nitric oxide(NO)) and in vivo (inhibition of ear oedema and reduction of response to pain stimulus) studies. Results showed that both GMB and FMB aqueous extract exhibited potent anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive activities in a dose-dependent manner. In vitro results showed that GMB and FMB were potent inflammatory mediator (NO) inhibitors at both 2.5 and 5 mg/mL. Further in vivo studies showed that GMB and FMB aqueous extract at 1000 mg/kg can significantly reduce ear oedema in mice caused by arachidonic acid. Besides, both 200 mg/kg and 1000 mg/kg concentrations of GMB and FMB were found to exhibit potent antinociceptive effects towards hotplate induced pain. With these, it can be concluded that GMB and FMB aqueous extract exhibited potential anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive effects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 36 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 11 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 11% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 11% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 14 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 25 January 2019.
All research outputs
#15,184,741
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM)
#2,840
of 9,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,646
of 242,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM)
#56
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,352 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 242,848 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.