↓ Skip to main content

A Review of Black Salve: Cancer Specificity, Cure, and Cosmesis

Overview of attention for article published in Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM), January 2017
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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
5 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
reddit
4 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
35 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.
Article details
Title
A Review of Black Salve: Cancer Specificity, Cure, and Cosmesis
Published in
Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM), January 2017
DOI 10.1155/2017/9184034
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Black salve is a topical escharotic used for the treatment of skin cancer. Although promoted as a safe and effective alternative to conventional management by its proponents, limited clinical research has been undertaken to assess its efficacy and potential toxicities. Patients are increasingly utilizing the Internet as a source of health information. As a minimally regulated space, the quality and accuracy of this information vary considerably. This review explores four health claims made by black salve vendors, investigating its natural therapy credentials, tumour specificity, and equivalence to orthodox medicine in relation to skin cancer cure rates and cosmesis. Based upon an analysis of in vitro constituent cytotoxicity, in vivo post black salve histology, and experience with Mohs paste, black salve is likely to possess normal tissue toxicity with some cancer cell lines being relatively resistant to its effects. This may explain the incongruous case study reports of excessive scarring, deformity, and treatment failure.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Other 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Other 7 20%
Unknown 8 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 08 November 2025.
All research outputs
#1,733,440
of 33,979,905 outputs
Outputs from Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM)
#504
of 9,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,943
of 467,345 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM)
#12
of 136 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,979,905 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,625 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 467,345 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 136 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 91% of its contemporaries.