↓ Skip to main content

Phytomedicines (medicines derived from plants) for sickle cell disease

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 (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

1 tweeter
2 Facebook pages


6 Dimensions

Readers on

53 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.
Phytomedicines (medicines derived from plants) for sickle cell disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004448.pub5
Pubmed ID

Oluseyi Oniyangi, Damian H Cohall


Sickle cell disease, a common recessively inherited haemoglobin disorder, affects people from sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, Mediterranean basin, Indian subcontinent, Caribbean and South America. It is associated with complications and a reduced life expectancy. Phytomedicines (medicine derived from plants in their original state) encompass many of the plant remedies from traditional healers which the populations most affected would encounter. There has been little systematic appraisal of their benefits. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2010 and updated in 2013. To assess the benefits and risks of phytomedicines in people with sickle cell disease of all types, of any age, in any setting. We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN) and the Allied and Complimentary Medicine Database (AMED).Dates of most recent searches: Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 13 October 2014; ISRCTN: 17 January 2015; AMED: 20 January 2015. Randomised or quasi-randomised trials with participants of all ages with sickle cell disease, in all settings, comparing the administration of phytomedicines, by any mode to placebo or conventional treatment, including blood transfusion and hydroxyurea. Both authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Two trials (182 participants) and two phytomedicines Niprisan(®) (also known as Nicosan(®)) and Ciklavit(®) were included. The Phase IIB (pivotal) trial suggests that Niprisan(®) was effective in reducing episodes of severe painful sickle cell disease crisis over a six-month period. It did not affect the risk of severe complications or the level of anaemia. No serious adverse effects were reported. The single trial of Cajanus cajan (Ciklavit(®)) reported a possible benefit to individuals with painful crises, and a possible adverse effect (non-significant) on the level of anaemia. While Niprisan(®) appeared to be safe and effective in reducing severe painful crises over a six-month follow-up period, further trials are required to assess its role in the management of people with sickle cell disease and the results of its multicentre trials are awaited. Currently no conclusions can be made regarding the efficacy of Ciklavit(®). Based on the published results for Niprisan(®) and in view of the limitations in data collection and analysis of both trials, phytomedicines may have a potential beneficial effect in reducing painful crises in sickle cell disease. This needs to be further validated in future trials. More trials are required on the safety and efficacy of phytomedicines used in managing sickle cell disease.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Algeria 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 49 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 21%
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Other 4 8%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 5 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 7 13%

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 02 June 2019.
All research outputs
of 15,161,635 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 365,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,161,635 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,122 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. 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 365,030 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 206 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.