↓ Skip to main content

Risks associated with the practice of traditional Chinese medicine: an Australian study.

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Family Medicine, November 2000
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 327)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Risks associated with the practice of traditional Chinese medicine: an Australian study.
Published in
Archives of Family Medicine, November 2000
DOI 10.1001/archfami.9.10.1071
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To investigate the nature and frequency of adverse events that occur as a result of the practice of traditional Chinese medicine (acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine) in Australia. Data on adverse events were obtained as part of a comprehensive survey of all occupational health groups, government-registered and unregistered, who practiced traditional Chinese medicine or 1 of its main modalities. Practitioners reported numerous adverse events arising from the application of acupuncture (including fainting, nausea and vomiting, and increased pain), or the consumption of Chinese herbal medicines (including direct toxic effects and allergic reactions). Practitioners experienced an average of 1 adverse event every 8 to 9 months of full-time practice or 1 adverse event for every 633 consultations. The mean adverse event rate of nonmedical practitioners was less than half the mean adverse event rate of medical practitioners. The practices of acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine are not risk-free and fatalities have occurred. Variation in adverse event rates between medical and nonmedical practitioners may reflect differences in relevant education or different reporting behaviors. These data represent the first step in the evaluation of adverse event rates in traditional Chinese medicine. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:1071-1078

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 3 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 47 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 22%
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Professor 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 8 16%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 48%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 8%
Psychology 4 8%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 6%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 8 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 02 September 2026.
All research outputs
#2,506,528
of 34,277,148 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Family Medicine
#24
of 327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,342
of 60,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Family Medicine
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,277,148 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 60,397 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 94% of its contemporaries.