↓ Skip to main content

“Coffee plus Honey” versus “topical steroid” in the treatment of Chemotherapy-induced Oral Mucositis: a randomised controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
12 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 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
“Coffee plus Honey” versus “topical steroid” in the treatment of Chemotherapy-induced Oral Mucositis: a randomised controlled trial
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6882-14-293
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammad Ali Raeessi, Neda Raeessi, Yunes Panahi, Homa Gharaie, Seyyed Masoud Davoudi, Alireza Saadat, Ali Akbar Karimi Zarchi, Fereshteh Raeessi, Seyyed Mostafa Ahmadi, Hamidreza Jalalian

Abstract

Oral mucositis is one of the common complications of cancer chemotherapy and about 40% of the patients who take chemotherapy protocols, experience this irritating problem. The purpose of this study was to draw comparison between the therapeutic effects of our treatment modalities (topical steroid, honey, honey plus coffee) in patients suffering from oral mucositis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Nepal 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Unknown 140 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 15%
Student > Master 20 14%
Researcher 11 8%
Other 9 6%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 28 20%
Unknown 45 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 33%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 4%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 44 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 19 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,630,833
of 25,363,685 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#267
of 3,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,219
of 241,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#10
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,363,685 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,959 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 241,936 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 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 91% of its contemporaries.