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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Complementary and alternative medicine use in rheumatoid arthritis: proposed mechanism of action and efficacy of commonly used modalities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Rheumatology International, October 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00296-009-1206-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Petros Efthimiou, Manil Kukar |
| Abstract |
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has become popular in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) worldwide. The objective of this study is to systematically review the proposed mechanisms of action and currently available evidence supporting the efficacy of CAM modalities in relieving signs and symptoms of RA. The prevalence of CAM usage by RA patients is anywhere from 28% to 90%. Many published studies on CAM are based on animal models of RA and there is often insufficient evidence for the efficacy of CAM modalities in RA. The existing evidence suggests that some of the CAM modalities, such as acupuncture, herbal medicines, dietary omega-3 fatty acids, vitamins, and pulsed electromagnetic field show promising efficacy in reducing pain. While the use of CAM modalities for the treatment of RA continues to increase, rigorous clinical trials examining their efficacy are necessary to validate or refute the clinical claims made for CAM therapies. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 148 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 31 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 26 | 17% |
| Researcher | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 33 | 22% |
| Unknown | 26 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 47 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 17 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 14 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 10 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 4% |
| Other | 25 | 17% |
| Unknown | 30 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 07 June 2023.
All research outputs
#4,694,486
of 22,780,165 outputs
Outputs from Rheumatology International
#445
of 2,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,835
of 94,351 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Rheumatology International
#4
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,165 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,178 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 94,351 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.