↓ Skip to main content

Chinese herbal medicine for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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 herbal medicine for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007535.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhang J, Li T, Zhou L, Tang L, Xu L, Wu T, Lim DC, Zhang, Jing, Li, Tingting, Zhou, Lingling, Tang, Liulin, Xu, Liangzhi, Wu, Taixiang, Lim, Danforn Ce

Abstract

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most common reproductive endocrinology abnormalities, affecting 5% to 10% of women of reproductive age. Western medicines, such as oral contraceptives and insulin sensitizers, have been widely used to improve the symptoms and signs for PCOS. Recently, many studies have been published considering Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) as an alternative treatment for women with PCOS. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Chinese medicinal herbs for subfertile women with PCOS. We searched the following databases (from inception to March 2010): Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register (MDSG), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), PsycINFO, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, Wanfang. In addition, all reference lists of included trials were searched and experts in the field were contacted to locate trials. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) considering the use of CHM for the treatment of subfertile women with PCOS. Two review authors independently screened appropriate trials for inclusion, assessed methodological quality, and extracted data. We contacted primary authors for additional information. Meta-analysis was conducted. Odds ratio (OR) was used for reporting dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Four RCTs involving 344 participants were included. The methodological risk of bias of included studies was poor. Different interventions were used in these four RCTs.There was evidence of statistically significant difference seen improving pregnancy rate (per woman) between CHM plus clomiphene and clomiphene (OR 2.97, 95%CI 1.71 to 5.17). However, there was no statistically significant difference seen in the other comparison groups for improving pregnancy rate (per woman).There was no evidence of statistically significant difference in improving ovulation rate (per woman) between CHM and clomiphene (OR 1.42, 95%CI 0.19 to 10.49), between CHM plus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) and LOD (OR 2.43, 95%CI 0.39 to 15.08).There were not statistically significant difference between CHM plus follicle aspiration, ovulation induction and follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction for adverse events including LUFS, OHSS and multiple pregnancy.Live birth rate was not reported by any studies. There is limited evidence that the addition of CHM to clomiphene is associated with improved clinical pregnancy outcomes and no other evidence of any other effect. The methodology of RCTs was not adequately reported by primary studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 12%
Researcher 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 8 19%
Unknown 2 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 57%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Psychology 2 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 3 7%

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 20 April 2015.
All research outputs
#9,676,727
of 12,100,779 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,722
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,405
of 219,052 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#153
of 159 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,100,779 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 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 219,052 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 159 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.