↓ Skip to main content

An Updated Review of the Efficacy of Cupping Therapy

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, February 2012
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
160 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
417 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
An Updated Review of the Efficacy of Cupping Therapy
Published in
PLOS ONE, February 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0031793
Pubmed ID
Authors

Huijuan Cao, Xun Li, Jianping Liu

Abstract

Since 1950, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) cupping therapy has been applied as a formal modality in hospitals throughout China and elsewhere in the world. Based on a previous systematic literature review of clinical studies on cupping therapy, this study presents a thorough review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the therapeutic effect of cupping therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 112 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 417 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Croatia 1 <1%
Unknown 414 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 97 23%
Student > Master 58 14%
Researcher 28 7%
Other 24 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 6%
Other 76 18%
Unknown 110 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 150 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 66 16%
Sports and Recreations 20 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 2%
Engineering 9 2%
Other 51 12%
Unknown 111 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 594. 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 12 April 2024.
All research outputs
#39,700
of 25,848,962 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#652
of 225,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125
of 168,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#6
of 3,532 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,848,962 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 225,398 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 168,958 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,532 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.