↓ Skip to main content

Traditional use of medicinal plants in south-central Zimbabwe: review and perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 777)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
11 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
234 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
659 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
Traditional use of medicinal plants in south-central Zimbabwe: review and perspectives
Published in
Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, May 2013
DOI 10.1186/1746-4269-9-31
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alfred Maroyi

Abstract

Traditional medicine has remained as the most affordable and easily accessible source of treatment in the primary healthcare system of resource poor communities in Zimbabwe. The local people have a long history of traditional plant usage for medicinal purposes. Despite the increasing acceptance of traditional medicine in Zimbabwe, this rich indigenous knowledge is not adequately documented. Documentation of plants used as traditional medicines is needed so that the knowledge can be preserved and the utilized plants conserved and used sustainably. The primary objective of this paper is to summarize information on traditional uses of medicinal plants in south-central Zimbabwe, identifying research gaps and suggesting perspectives for future research.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 659 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Botswana 1 <1%
Cameroon 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Mauritius 1 <1%
Peru 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 648 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 136 21%
Student > Master 87 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 84 13%
Researcher 37 6%
Student > Postgraduate 33 5%
Other 105 16%
Unknown 177 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 118 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 73 11%
Chemistry 70 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 47 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 38 6%
Other 117 18%
Unknown 196 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 46. 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 07 November 2021.
All research outputs
#904,685
of 25,304,569 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#16
of 777 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,413
of 198,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,304,569 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 777 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 198,457 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 18 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 99% of its contemporaries.