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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Effect of Propolis in Healing Injured Nasal Mucosa: An Experimental Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1055/s-0036-1579664 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mohammad Waheed El-Anwar, Said Abdelmonem, Ahmed A. Abdelsameea, Mohamed AlShawadfy, Kamal El-Kashishy |
| Abstract |
Mechanical trauma to the nasal mucosa increases the risk of synechia formation, especially after chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal surgeries. This study was carried to assess the effect of propolis administration in healing injured nasal mucosa in rats. We randomly divided eighteen rats into three equal experimental groups: (1) non-treated group; (2) gum tragacanth (suspending agent for propolis) treated group; and (3) propolis treated group. The non-treated group received no treatment for 15 days. The second group received gum tragacanth administration (5 ml/kg, orally) once daily for 15 days. The third group received propolis suspension orally at a dose of 100 mg/kg once daily for 15 days. At the beginning of this study, we induced unilateral mechanical nasal trauma on the right nasal mucosa of all rats in the three groups using a brushing technique. A pathologist stained tissue samples using hematoxylin and examined eosin by using a light microscope. The severity of inflammation was milder with the absence of ulcerations in the propolis treated group compared with the non-treated and gum tragacanth groups. Goblet cell and ciliated cell loss was substantially lower in patients treated with propolis compared with groups without treatment and those treated with gum tragacanth. Propolis decreased inflammation and enhanced healing of wounds of the nasal mucosa in rats. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 14 | 52% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 26% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 7% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 12 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,291,775
of 23,493,900 outputs
Outputs from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#202
of 647 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,494
of 299,322 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology
#7
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,493,900 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 647 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 299,322 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 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 71% of its contemporaries.