↓ Skip to main content

Herbal medicines and chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN): A critical literature review

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
55 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
Herbal medicines and chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN): A critical literature review
Published in
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, April 2015
DOI 10.1080/10408398.2014.889081
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy [CIPN] is a common significant and debilitating side-effect resulting from the administration of neurotoxic chemotherapeutic agents. These pharmaco-chemotherapeutics can include taxanes, vinca alkaloids, platinum analogues and others. Moderate to severe CIPN significantly decreases the quality of life and physical abilities of cancer patients and current pharmacotherapy for CIPN e.g. Amifostine, and antidepressants have had limited efficacy and may themselves induce adverse side-effects. To determine the potential use of herbal medicines as adjuvants in cancer treatments a critical literature review was conducted by electronic and manual search on nine databases. These include PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Science Direct, Scopus, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and two Chinese databases CNKI and CINAHL. Thirty-four studies were selected from 5614 studies assessed and comprised of animal studies, case reports, retrospective studies and minimal randomized clinical trials investigating the anti-CIPN effect of herbal medicines as the adjuvant intervention in patients administered chemotherapy. The thirty-four studies were assessed on methodological quality and limitations identified. Studies were mixed in their recommendations for herbal medicines as an adjuvant treatment for CIPN. Currently no agent has shown solid beneficial evidence to be recommended for the treatment or prophylaxis of CIPN. Given that the number of cancer survivors is increasing, the long-term side effects of cancer treatment, is of major importance.

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 profile of 1 X user 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 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Master 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 3 5%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 17 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 19 35%
Attention Score in Context

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 31 July 2015.
All research outputs
#23,711,890
of 28,925,058 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
#2,337
of 2,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,932
of 284,892 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
#65
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,925,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,877 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 284,892 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 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.