↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of anxiolytic activity of methanolic extract of Urtica urens in a mice model

Overview of attention for article published in Behavioral and Brain Functions, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Evaluation of anxiolytic activity of methanolic extract of Urtica urens in a mice model
Published in
Behavioral and Brain Functions, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12993-015-0063-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zouhra Doukkali, Khalid Taghzouti, EL Houcine Bouidida, Mohamed Nadjmouddine, Yahya Cherrah, Katim Alaoui

Abstract

The present study was designed to study anxiolytic property of methanolic extracts of Urtica urens; an important and commonly used for its medicinal properties belongs to urticaceae family. The anxiolytic activity was evaluated with the adult mice by hole board test, and the light-dark box test, and motor coordination with the rota rod test. The efficacy of the plant extract (100-400 mg/kg) was compared with the standard anxiolytic drug diazepam (1 mg/kg i.p.) RESULTS: The extract increased the time spent in the brightly-lit chamber of the light/dark box, as well as in the number of times the animal crossed from one compartment to the other. Performance on the rota rod was unaffected. In the hole board test, the extract significantly increased both head-dip counts and head-dip duration. Urtica urens, in contrast to diazepam, had no effect on locomotion. These results provides support for anxiolytic activity of Urtica urens, in line with its medicinal traditional use, and may also suggest a better side-effect profile of Urtica urens relative to diazepam.

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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 26%
Lecturer 5 13%
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 5 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Chemistry 2 5%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 6 16%

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 16 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,671,786
of 5,030,622 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#159
of 300 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#91,049
of 156,540 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral and Brain Functions
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,030,622 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 300 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 156,540 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.