↓ Skip to main content

Phytomedicines (medicines derived from plants) for sickle cell disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
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 (81st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Phytomedicines (medicines derived from plants) for sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004448.pub6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oluseyi Oniyangi, Damian H Cohall

Abstract

Sickle cell disease, a common recessively inherited haemoglobin disorder, affects people from sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Mediterranean basin, Indian subcontinent, Caribbean and South America. It is associated with complications and a reduced life expectancy. Phytomedicines (medicine derived from plants in their original state) encompass many of the plant remedies from traditional healers which the populations most affected would encounter. Laboratory research and limited clinical trials have suggested positive effects of phytomedicines both in vivo and in vitro. However, there has been little systematic appraisal of their benefits. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2004, and updated in 2010, 2013, and 2015. To assess the benefits and risks of phytomedicines in people with sickle cell disease of all types, of any age, in any setting. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN), the Allied and Complimentary Medicine Database (AMED), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).Dates of most recent searches: Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 10 April 2017; ISRCTN: 26 July 2017; AMED: 24 August 2017; ClinicalTrials.gov: 02 August 2017; and the WHO ICTRP: 27 July 2017. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials with participants of all ages with sickle cell disease, in all settings, comparing the administration of phytomedicines, by any mode to placebo or conventional treatment, including blood transfusion and hydroxyurea. Both authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Two trials (182 participants) and two phytomedicines Niprisan®(also known as Nicosan®) and Ciklavit®were included. The Phase IIB (pivotal) trial suggests that Niprisan®was effective in reducing episodes of severe painful sickle cell disease crisis over a six-month period (low-quality evidence). It did not affect the risk of severe complications or the level of anaemia (low-quality evidence). No serious adverse effects were reported. The single trial of Cajanus cajan (Ciklavit®) reported a possible benefit to individuals with painful crises (low-quality evidence), and a possible adverse effect (non-significant) on the level of anaemia (low-quality evidence). While Niprisan®appeared to be safe and effective in reducing severe painful crises over a six-month follow-up period, further trials are required to assess its role in the management of people with sickle cell disease and the results of its multicentre trials are awaited. Currently no conclusions can be made regarding the efficacy of Ciklavit®. Based on the published results for Niprisan®and in view of the limitations in data collection and analysis of both trials, phytomedicines may have a potential beneficial effect in reducing painful crises in sickle cell disease. This needs to be further validated in future trials. More trials are required on the safety and efficacy of phytomedicines used in managing sickle cell disease.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 116 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 25 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 17%
Social Sciences 7 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Environmental Science 3 3%
Other 22 18%
Unknown 32 27%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#1,805,202
of 15,338,021 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,473
of 11,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,284
of 279,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#102
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,338,021 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,163 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 279,302 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 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 50% of its contemporaries.