↓ Skip to main content

Chinese medicinal herbs for mumps

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
57 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 medicinal herbs for mumps
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008578.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Min Shu, Yi Qiong Zhang, Zhiyao Li, Guan J Liu, Chaomin Wan, Yang Wen

Abstract

Mumps is an infectious disease caused by the mumps virus. Chinese physicians generally believe that Chinese medicinal herbs are effective in alleviating symptoms and reducing the duration of mumps. Herbalists tend to develop a treatment plan according to the individual's symptoms. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Chinese medicinal herbs combined with routine treatments for mumps. We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1948 to January week 4, 2015), EMBASE (1974 to February 2015), CINAHL (1981 to February 2015), AMED (1985 to April 2014), the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) (1980 to February 2015), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to February 2015), VIP Information (1989 to February 2015), and relevant databases of ongoing trials. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of Chinese medicinal herbs for mumps (with or without complications). Two review authors independently evaluated trial quality and conducted data extraction. We contacted the trial authors for missing data regarding participant allocation. Some trials allocated participants according to the participants' admission sequence, making it a pseudo-random allocation. None of the trials concealed participants' allocation or used blinding. We did not identify any eligible trials for inclusion. We identified 108 studies that claimed to use random allocation. We excluded 104 studies because the allocation methods the authors had used were not actually randomised. We were unable to contact the trial authors of the remaining four studies. These trials require further evaluation and have been allocated to the 'Studies awaiting classification' section. We did not find any RCTs for or against Chinese herbal medicine used in the treatment of mumps. We hope more high-quality RCTs will be conducted in the future.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 55 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 21%
Student > Master 11 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Unspecified 7 12%
Other 7 12%
Other 13 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 54%
Unspecified 10 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 5 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 08 October 2016.
All research outputs
#7,441,307
of 13,804,624 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,253
of 10,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,718
of 227,739 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#188
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,804,624 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 227,739 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.