↓ Skip to main content

In vitro and in vivo antidermatophytic activity of the dichloromethane-methanol (1:1 v/v) extract from the stem bark of Polyscias fulva Hiern (Araliaceae)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
In vitro and in vivo antidermatophytic activity of the dichloromethane-methanol (1:1 v/v) extract from the stem bark of Polyscias fulva Hiern (Araliaceae)
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1472-6882-13-95
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guy Sedar Singor Njateng, Donatien Gatsing, Raymond Simplice Mouokeu, Paul Keilah Lunga, Jules-Roger Kuiate

Abstract

During the last decades, the number of people suffering from dermatophytoses has seriously increased, mainly due to the development of resistant strains of microorganisms to a range of formally efficient antibiotics. Polyscias fulva, a medium size tree which grows in the West Region of Cameroon is traditionally used for local application against dermatoses and orally against venereal infections. The dichloromethane-methanol (1:1 v/v) extract from the stem bark of Polyscias fulva was evaluated for its in vitro and in vivo antifungal activities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 18%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 6 15%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 10%
Chemistry 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 5%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 12 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 December 2023.
All research outputs
#14,995,121
of 25,231,854 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#1,617
of 3,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,693
of 198,591 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#36
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,231,854 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,941 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 198,591 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.