↓ Skip to main content

Shengmai (a traditional Chinese herbal medicine) for heart failure

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Shengmai (a traditional Chinese herbal medicine) for heart failure
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005052.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jie Chen, Yu Yao, Haining Chen, Joey SW Kwong, Jin Chen

Abstract

This systemic review is an update of a review previously published in 2011. Heart failure is a major public health problem worldwide. Shengmai (a traditional Chinese herbal medicine) has long been used as a complementary treatment for heart failure in China. To assess the effects (both benefits and harms) of Shengmai for heart failure. We searched CENTRAL and DARE on The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1948 to March 2011), EMBASE (1980 to March 2011), AMED (1985 to August 2008) (AMED was not searched for the update as it is no longer available to the person conducting the searches), BIOSIS (1969 to March 2011), CBM (1978 to April 2011), VIP (1989 to April 2011) and CNKI (1979 to April 2011). We also handsearched Chinese journals. No language restrictions were applied. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Shengmai plus usual treatment versus usual treatment alone or Shengmai versus placebo in treating heart failure, irrespective of blinding status, were included. More stringent inclusion criteria were applied in this update and only studies with a clear description of randomization methods and classified as true RCTs were included. Two authors independently selected trials, assessed methodological quality and extracted data. Dichotomous and continuous data were calculated as relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD), respectively. A random-effects model and fixed-effect model were used to perform meta-analysis with and without heterogeneity, respectively. Nine RCTs (600 patients) with seven comparing Shengmai plus usual treatment with usual treatment alone and three comparing Shengmai with placebo (one RCT contained three arms) were included in this updated review. Based upon the seven RCTs (494 patients), improvement of the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification was more common in patients taking Shengmai plus usual treatment than in those receiving usual treatment alone (risk ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.23 to 0.47). Beneficial effects of Shengmai in treating heart failure were also observed on other outcomes, including an exercise test, ejection fraction, cardiac output, cardiac index and left ventricular end-systolic volume. The three RCTs (106 patients) which compared Shengmai with placebo reported an improvement in NYHA functional classification, ejection fraction, stroke volume, cardiac index and myocardial contractility. Three out of the nine RCTs reported mild adverse effects, and two patients were withdrawn due to the adverse effects. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution. This is due to the studies being of low quality, their small sample size, and the significant heterogeneity for certain outcomes including ejection fraction and cardiac output. Shengmai may be beneficial in treating heart failure, especially in terms of improving the NYHA functional classification with Shengmai plus usual treatment. However, the evidence for its effects on mortality and hospitalisation are not available yet. Therefore more studies, of higher quality and long-term follow-up, are needed to provide more evidence for the future use of Shengmai.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 18%
Researcher 4 18%
Other 2 9%
Unspecified 2 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Other 5 23%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Unspecified 2 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 23%

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 03 October 2014.
All research outputs
#3,639,822
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,419
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,474
of 337,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#142
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% 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 337,890 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.