↓ Skip to main content

Chinese herbal medicine for menopausal symptoms

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
27 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
183 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 herbal medicine for menopausal symptoms
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009023.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaoshu Zhu, Yuklan Liew, Zhao Lan Liu

Abstract

Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) usage is expected to increase as women suffering from menopausal symptoms are seeking alternative therapy due to concerns from the adverse effects (AEs) associated with hormone therapy (HT). Scientific evidence for their effectiveness and safety is needed. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of CHM in the treatment of menopausal symptoms. We searched the Gynaecology and Fertility Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, and PsycINFO (from inception to March 2015). Others included Current Control Trials, Citation Indexes, conference abstracts in the ISI Web of Knowledge, LILACS database, PubMed, OpenSIGLE database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure database (CNKI, 1999 to 2015). Other resources included reference lists of articles as well as direct contact with authors. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effectiveness of CHM with placebo, HT, pharmaceutical drugs, acupuncture, or another CHM formula in women over 18 years of age, and suffering from menopausal symptoms. Two review authors independently assessed 864 studies for eligibility. Data extractions were performed by them with disagreements resolved through group discussion and clarification of data or direct contact with the study authors. Data analyses were performed in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. We included 22 RCTs (2902 women). Participants were from different ethnic backgrounds with the majority of Chinese origin.When CHM was compared with placebo (eight RCTs), there was little or no evidence of a difference between the groups for the following pooled outcomes: hot flushes per day (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.89; 2 trials, 199 women; moderate quality evidence); hot flushes per day assessed by an overall hot flush score in which a difference of one point equates to one mild hot flush per day (MD -0.81 points, 95% CI -2.08 to 0.45; 3 RCTs, 263 women; low quality evidence); and overall vasomotor symptoms per month measured by the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire (MENQOL, scale 0 to 6) (MD -0.42 points; 95% CI -1.52 to 0.68; 3 RCTs, 256 women; low quality evidence).In addition, results from individual studies suggested there was no evidence of a difference between the groups for daily hot flushes assessed by severity (MD -0.70 points, 95% CI -1.00, -0.40; 1 RCT, 108 women; moderate quality evidence); or overall monthly hot flushes scores (MD -2.80 points, 95% CI -8.93 to 3.33; 1 RCT, 84 women; very low quality evidence); or overall daily night sweats scores (MD 0.07 points, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.33, 1 RCT, 64 women; low quality evidence); or overall monthly night sweats scores (MD 1.30 points, 95% CI -1.76 to 4.36, 1 RCT, 84 women; very low quality evidence). However one study using the Kupperman Index reported that overall monthly vasomotor symptom scores were lower in the CHM group (MD -4.79 points, 95% CI -5.52 to -4.06; 1 RCT, 69 women; low quality evidence).When CHM was compared with hormone therapy (HT) (10 RCTs), only two RCTs reported monthly vasomotor symptoms using MENQOL. It was uncertain whether CHM reduces vasomotor symptoms (MD 0.47 points, 95% CI -0.50 to 1.44; 2 RCTs, 127 women; very low quality evidence).Adverse effects were not fully reported in the included studies. Adverse events reported by women taking CHM included mild diarrhoea, breast tenderness, gastric discomfort and an unpleasant taste. Effects were inconclusive because of imprecise estimates of effects: CHM versus placebo (RR 1.51; 95% CI 0.69 to 3.33; 7 trials, 705 women; I² = 40%); CHM versus HT (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.39; 2 RCTs, 864 women; I² = 0%); and CHM versus specific conventional medications (such as Fluoxetine and Estazolam) (RR 0.20; 95% CI 0.03 to 1.17; 2 RCTs, 139 women; I² = 61%). We found insufficient evidence that Chinese herbal medicines were any more or less effective than placebo or HT for the relief of vasomotor symptoms. Effects on safety were inconclusive. The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate; there is a need for well-designed randomised controlled studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 183 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 182 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 38 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 10%
Student > Bachelor 18 10%
Researcher 17 9%
Other 13 7%
Other 44 24%
Unknown 34 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 15%
Psychology 10 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 5%
Social Sciences 8 4%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 42 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 19 December 2019.
All research outputs
#687,476
of 15,268,406 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,946
of 11,168 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,969
of 266,659 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#61
of 200 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,268,406 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,168 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 266,659 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 200 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.