↓ Skip to main content

Whole plant extracts versus single compounds for the treatment of malaria: synergy and positive interactions

Overview of attention for article published in Malaria Journal, March 2011
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 (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
6 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
270 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
469 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
Whole plant extracts versus single compounds for the treatment of malaria: synergy and positive interactions
Published in
Malaria Journal, March 2011
DOI 10.1186/1475-2875-10-s1-s4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philippe Rasoanaivo, Colin W Wright, Merlin L Willcox, Ben Gilbert

Abstract

In traditional medicine whole plants or mixtures of plants are used rather than isolated compounds. There is evidence that crude plant extracts often have greater in vitro or/and in vivo antiplasmodial activity than isolated constituents at an equivalent dose. The aim of this paper is to review positive interactions between components of whole plant extracts, which may explain this.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters 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 469 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Pakistan 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 455 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 82 17%
Student > Master 67 14%
Student > Bachelor 62 13%
Researcher 41 9%
Lecturer 29 6%
Other 106 23%
Unknown 82 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 112 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 55 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 53 11%
Chemistry 43 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 41 9%
Other 56 12%
Unknown 109 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 January 2022.
All research outputs
#4,069,193
of 21,326,395 outputs
Outputs from Malaria Journal
#1,014
of 5,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,887
of 214,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Malaria Journal
#2
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,326,395 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 214,456 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 8 of them.