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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Species identification approach for both raw materials and end products of herbal supplements from Tinospora species
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12906-018-2174-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maslin Osathanunkul, Rossarin Osathanunkul, Panagiotis Madesis |
| Abstract |
Nowadays herbal products used in traditional medicine are sold in processed forms and thus morphological authentication is almost impossible. With herbal industry rapidly growing size, consumer safety becomes an important issue that requires special attention. Identification of herbal species in the products is therefore needed. Sequences from the selected regions (matK, rbcL, trnL and ITS1) were retrieved and analysed. Then the most suitable barcode was assessed for discrimination of T. crispa from closely related species by HRM analysis and used in authentication of commercial products. The ITS1 barcode was found to be the suitable primer as melting data from the HRM assay proved to be capable of distinguishing T. crispa from its related species. The developed protocol was then employed to authenticate medicinal products in powdered form. HRM analysis of all tested samples here revealed that five out of eight products contained not only the indicated species T. crispa but also other Tinospora, that have a high level of morphological similarity. Misrepresentation, poor packaging and inappropriate labeling of the tested medicinal herbal products are thought to be the reason of the results here. Using Bar-HRM with the ITS marker lead to success in authenticating the tested herbal products. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 47 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 19% |
| Unknown | 17 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 11% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 4% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 18 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,594,219
of 23,031,582 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,525
of 3,644 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#256,372
of 330,033 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#56
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,031,582 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,644 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 330,033 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.