↓ Skip to main content

Use of Chinese medicine by cancer patients: a review of surveys

Overview of attention for article published in Chinese Medicine, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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.
Title
Use of Chinese medicine by cancer patients: a review of surveys
Published in
Chinese Medicine, January 2011
DOI 10.1186/1749-8546-6-22
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bridget Carmady, Caroline A Smith

Abstract

Chinese medicine has been used to treat a variety of cancer-related conditions. This study aims to examine the prevalence and patterns of Chinese medicine usage by cancer patients. We reviewed articles written in English and found only the Chinese medicine usage from the studies on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Seventy four (74) out of 81 articles reported rates of CAM usage ranging from 2.6 to 100%. Acupuncture was reported in 71 out of 81 studies. Other less commonly reported modalities included Qigong (n = 17), Chinese herbal medicine (n = 11), Taichi (n = 10), acupressure (n = 6), moxibustion (n = 2), Chinese dietary therapy (n = 1), Chinese massage (n = 1), cupping (n = 1) and other Chinese medicine modalities (n = 19). This review also found important limitations of the English language articles on CAM usage in cancer patients. Our results show that Chinese medicine, in particular Chinese herbal medicine, is commonly used by cancer patients. Further research is warranted to include studies not written in English.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Taiwan 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 60 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Other 17 26%
Unknown 3 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 4 6%

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 2011.
All research outputs
#6,496,998
of 12,502,272 outputs
Outputs from Chinese Medicine
#72
of 280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,293,789
of 11,949,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chinese Medicine
#72
of 276 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,502,272 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 280 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 11,949,092 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 276 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 72% of its contemporaries.