↓ Skip to main content

Chinese herbal medicine for atopic eczema

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2005
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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 atopic eczema
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2005
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002291.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Weiya Zhang, Tina Leonard, Fiona J Bath‐Hextall, Colette Chambers, Chuanfang Lee, Rosemary Humphreys, Hywel C Williams

Abstract

Traditional Chinese herbal mixtures have been used to treat atopic eczema for many years. Their efficacy has attracted public attention and recently some clinical trials have been undertaken. To assess the effects of Chinese herbal mixtures in the treatment of atopic eczema. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) ( January 2004), the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register (January 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2004), EMBASE (1980 to January 2004), CINHL (1980 to January 2004) and a number of complementary medicine databases. In addition, the cited references of all trials identified and key review articles were searched. Pharmaceutical companies involved in oral traditional Chinese herbs and experts in the field were contacted. Randomised controlled trials of Chinese herbal mixtures used in the treatment of atopic eczema. Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed the quality of the trials and extracted data. Any discrepancies were discussed to achieve consensus. Four randomised controlled trials, with eight weeks for each phase, met the inclusion criteria. The trials randomised 159 participants aged from 1 to 60 years. The withdrawal rates ranged from 7.5% to 22.5% and no trial used intention to treat analysis. Three trials were randomised placebo controlled, two-phase cross-over designs assessing the same Chinese herbal mixture, Zemaphyte. In two of these three trials the reduction in erythema and surface damage was greater on Zemaphyte than on placebo, and participants slept better and expressed a preference for Zemaphyte. One trial also reported that participants itched less. The fourth trial was an open-label design comparing Zemaphyte in herbal form with Zemaphyte as a freeze dried preparation. There was a reduction in erythema and surface damage with both formulations, but no comparison between the two formulations was reported. Some adverse effects were reported in all four trials, but none were regarded as serious. Chinese herbal mixtures may be effective in the treatment of atopic eczema. However, only four small poorly reported RCTs of the same product, Zemaphyte, were found and the results were heterogeneous. Further well-designed, larger scale trials are required, but Zemaphyte is no longer being manufactured.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
China 1 4%
Australia 1 4%
Unknown 25 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 19%
Researcher 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 15%
Librarian 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 6 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 6 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 05 September 2022.
All research outputs
#8,571,053
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,070
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,455
of 69,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#31
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 69,479 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.