↓ Skip to main content

Puerarin for ischaemic stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 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
Puerarin for ischaemic stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004955.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bian Liu, Yan Tan, Deren Wang, Ming Liu

Abstract

Puerarin, a form of herbal medicine, is widely used in the treatment of ischaemic stroke in China. To assess the effects of puerarin in people with ischaemic stroke. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register and the Chinese Stroke Trials Register (last searched August 2015). In addition, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (1948 to August 2015), EMBASE (1980 to August 2015), AMED (the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, 1985 to August 2015) and the China Biological Medicine Database (CBM-disc 1979 to August 2015). We searched reference lists, relevant clinical trials and research registers and contacted pharmaceutical companies and researchers in an effort to identify further published and unpublished studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials comparing puerarin with placebo or open control (no placebo) in people with ischaemic stroke. Two review authors independently applied the inclusion criteria, assessed trial quality and risk of bias, and extracted the data. We included 20 RCTs with 1574 participants in this updated review. All trials were published in Chinese language journals. We included 14 trials that we had excluded in the previous version of the review after we added a new outcome in this update. Time windows within which the participants were randomised ranged from 4.5 hours to 10 days. Ischaemic stroke was confirmed by computerised tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in 18 trials. Meta-analysis of two trials with 164 participants showed that treatment with puerarin did not reduce death or dependency at final follow-up (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.36). One trial with 83 participants reported that the mean value of the Barthel Index in the puerarin group was below that in the control group. Meta-analysis of 16 trials with 1305 participants showed that puerarin reduced the proportion of participants without improvement of neurological deficit at the end of follow-up (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.55). None of the included trials reported serious adverse effects.The quality of evidence was low due to incomplete reporting of the methods and short-term follow-up. There is not enough evidence to evaluate the effect of puerarin on survival or dependency in people with ischaemic stroke. High quality and large-scale RCTs with long-term follow-up are needed to assess its efficacy.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 39%
Unspecified 6 18%
Researcher 4 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 30%
Unspecified 7 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 15%
Neuroscience 4 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Other 5 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,444,329
of 12,724,322 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,537
of 10,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,607
of 266,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#139
of 193 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,724,322 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,409 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 266,267 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 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 193 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.