↓ Skip to main content

Zingiberaceae extracts for pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
58 tweeters
patent
2 patents
facebook
15 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 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
Zingiberaceae extracts for pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Nutrition Journal, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12937-015-0038-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shaheen E. Lakhan, Christopher T. Ford, Deborah Tepper

Abstract

Members of the family Zingiberaceae including turmeric, ginger, Javanese ginger, and galangal have been used for centuries in traditional medicine. Preclinical studies of Zingiberaceae extracts have shown analgesic properties. This study aims to systematically review and meta-analyze whether extracts from Zingiberaceae are clinically effective hypoalgesic agents. Literature was screened from electronic databases using the key words Zingiberaceae AND pain OR visual analogue score (VAS) to identify randomized trials. From this search, 18 studies were identified, and of these, 8 randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials were found that measured pain by VAS for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Findings indicated significant efficacy of Zingiberaceae extracts in reducing subjective chronic pain (SMD - 0.67; 95 % CI - 1.13 to - 0.21; P = 0.004). A linear dose-effect relationship was apparent between studies (R(2) = 0.71). All studies included in the systematic review reported a good safety profile for extracts, without the renal risks associated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and with similar effectiveness. Our findings indicated that Zingiberaceae extracts are clinically effective hypoalgesic agents and the available data show a better safety profile than non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. However, both non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and Zingiberaceae have been associated with a heightened bleeding risk, and there have been no comparator trials of this risk. Further clinical studies are recommended to identify the most effective type of Zingiberaceae extract and rigorously compare safety, including bleeding risk.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 58 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 126 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 27%
Student > Master 18 14%
Researcher 10 8%
Lecturer 10 8%
Other 9 7%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 23 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 20 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 8%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 27 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 93. 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 30 June 2020.
All research outputs
#235,092
of 15,936,032 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#81
of 1,221 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,023
of 233,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,936,032 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,221 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 233,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them