↓ Skip to main content

Influence of Plantago ovata husk (dietary fiber) on the bioavailability and other pharmacokinetic parameters of metformin in diabetic rabbits

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
21 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
Influence of Plantago ovata husk (dietary fiber) on the bioavailability and other pharmacokinetic parameters of metformin in diabetic rabbits
Published in
BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, June 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12906-017-1809-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Raquel Díez, Juan José García, María José Diez, Matilde Sierra, Ana M. Sahagun, Nélida Fernández

Abstract

Metformin is an oral hypoglycemic agent frequently used in patients with type 2 diabetes. In this study, we have investigated the influence of the dietary fiber Plantago ovata husk on the pharmacokinetics of this drug when included in the diet, as well as when administered at the same time as metformin. Six groups of 6 rabbits were used. Groups 1 to 3 were fed with standard chow and groups 4 to 6 with chow supplemented with fiber (3.5 mg/kg/day). Groups 1 and 4 received metformin intravenously (30 mg/kg). Groups 2 and 5 received metfomin orally (30 mg/kg), and number 3 and 6 were treated orally with metformin (30 mg/kg) and fiber (300 mg/kg). The changes caused by the inclusion of fiber in the feeding were more important in groups that received oral metformin. In this way, metformin oral bioavailability showed an increase of 34.42% when rabbits were fed with supplemented chow. Plantago ovata husk increased the amount of absorbed metformin when included in the diet (significant increase in AUC), and delayed its absorption when administered at the same time (significant increase in tmax).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 29%
Professor 5 24%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 3 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 24%
Chemistry 3 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 5 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 June 2017.
All research outputs
#9,080,347
of 11,342,318 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#1,644
of 2,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,263
of 267,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#20
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,342,318 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,357 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 267,466 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.