↓ Skip to main content

Chinese herbs combined with Western medicine for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
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)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 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
Chinese herbs combined with Western medicine for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004882.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xuemei Liu, Mingming Zhang, Lin He, Youping Li

Abstract

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is an acute respiratory disease caused by a novel coronavirus, which first appeared in Foshan City, China on 22 December 2002. Chinese herbs were used in its treatment. To evaluate the possible effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbs combined with Western medicines versus Western medicines alone for SARS patients. We searched CENTRAL 2012, Issue 3, MEDLINE (1966 to February Week 4, 2012), EMBASE (1990 to March 2012) and the Chinese Biomedical Literature (Issue 3, 2012). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of Chinese herbs combined with Western medicines versus Western medicines alone for patients diagnosed with SARS. Two review authors (XL, MZ) independently extracted trial data. We extracted dichotomous and continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For dichotomous data, we used risk ratio (RR). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD). We calculated overall results based on the random-effects model if heterogeneity existed between studies. If no heterogeneity was detected between the studies, we used the fixed-effect model. We used the Z score and the Chi(2) test with significance being set at P < 0.05 to test heterogeneity. No severe adverse events were reported. We included 12 RCTs and one quasi-RCT. A total of 640 SARS patients and 12 Chinese herbs were identified. We did not find Chinese herbs combined with Western medicines decreased mortality versus Western medicines alone. Two herbs may improve symptoms. Five herbs may improve lung infiltrate absorption. Four herbs may decrease the dosage of corticosteroids. Three herbs may improve the quality of life of SARS patients. One herb may shorten the length of hospital stay. Chinese herbs combined with Western medicines made no difference in decreasing mortality versus Western medicines alone. It is possible that Chinese herbs combined with Western medicines may improve symptoms, quality of life and absorption of pulmonary infiltration, and decrease the corticosteroid dosage for SARS patients. The evidence is weak because of the poor quality of the included trials. Long-term follow-up of these included trials is needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Unknown 183 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 32 17%
Researcher 30 16%
Student > Master 20 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 8%
Other 45 24%
Unknown 29 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 76 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 29 16%
Unknown 44 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 26 April 2020.
All research outputs
#920,695
of 15,520,561 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,608
of 11,207 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,596
of 288,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#66
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,520,561 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,207 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 288,056 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 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.