↓ Skip to main content

Chinese herbal medicine for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
Chinese herbal medicine for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007535.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kunyan Zhou, Jing Zhang, Liangzhi Xu, Taixiang Wu, Chi Eung Danforn Lim

Abstract

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most common reproductive endocrinology abnormalities, and affects 5% to 10% of women of reproductive age. Western medicines, such as oral contraceptives, insulin sensitizers and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD), have been used to treat PCOS. Recently, many studies have been published that consider Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) as an alternative treatment for women with PCOS. To assess the efficacy and safety of CHM for subfertile women with PCOS. We searched sources, including the following databases, from inception to 9 June 2016: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), PsycINFO, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, Wanfang and trial registries. In addition, we searched the reference lists of included trials and contacted experts in the field to locate trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that considered the use of CHM for the treatment of subfertile women with PCOS. Two review authors independently screened appropriate trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information. We conducted meta-analyses. We used the odds ratios (ORs) to report dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods. We included five RCTs with 414 participants. The comparisons in the included trials were as follows: CHM versus clomiphene, CHM plus clomiphene versus clomiphene (with or without ethinyloestradiol cyproterone acetate (CEA)), CHM plus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction versus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction alone, and CHM plus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) versus LOD alone. The overall quality of the evidence for most comparisons was very low.None of the included studies reported live birth rate, and only one study reported data on adverse events.When CHM was compared with clomiphene (with or without LOD in both arms), there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 5.06; two studies, 90 participants, I² statistic = 0%, very low quality evidence). No study reported data on adverse events. When CHM plus clomiphene was compared with clomiphene (with or without CEA), there was low quality evidence of a higher pregnancy rate in the CHM plus clomiphene group (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.14; three RCTs, 300 women, I² statistic = 0%,low quality evidence). No data were reported on adverse events.When CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction was compared with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction alone, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in pregnancy rates (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.52; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence), severe luteinized unruptured follicle syndrome (LUFS) (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 8.19; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence).When CHM with LOD was compared with LOD alone, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of pregnancy (OR 3.50, 95% CI 0.72 to 17.09; one study, 30 women, very low quality evidence), No data were reported on adverse events.There was no evidence of a difference between any of the comparison groups for any other outcomes. The quality of the evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes was very low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or adverse events, failure to describe study methods in adequate detail and imprecision due to very low event rates and wide CIs. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of CHM for women with PCOS and subfertility. No data are available on live birth, and there is no consistent evidence to indicate that CHM influences fertility outcomes. However there is very limited low quality evidence to suggest that the addition of CHM to clomiphene may improve pregnancy rates. There is insufficient evidence on adverse effects to indicate whether CHM is safe.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
Unknown 115 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 21%
Researcher 18 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Unspecified 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Other 32 27%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 58 50%
Unspecified 15 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 7%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 1 <1%

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 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#6,444,987
of 12,612,419 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,546
of 10,376 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,569
of 285,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#123
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,612,419 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,376 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 285,593 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.