↓ Skip to main content

A Pharmacological Review of Bioactive Constituents of Paeonia lactiflora Pallas and Paeonia veitchii Lynch

Overview of attention for article published in Phytotherapy Research, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
16 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
A Pharmacological Review of Bioactive Constituents of Paeonia lactiflora Pallas and Paeonia veitchii Lynch
Published in
Phytotherapy Research, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/ptr.5653
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shefton Parker, Brian May, Claire Zhang, Anthony Lin Zhang, Chuanjian Lu, Charlie Changli Xue

Abstract

The roots of two peony species, Paeonia lactiflora Pallas and Paeonia veitchii Lynch are routinely referred to as either chishao () or baishao (). This paper reviews the botanical origins and traditional medicinal usage of each species, as well as pharmacological like activity of their constituents. A search of herbal pharmacological encyclopaedia, PubChem and PubMed databases identified their known constituents. The biological data for these constituents were evaluated and classified according to pharmacological-like activity, with emphasis on compounds of greatest concentration and bioavailability. It was found that P. lactiflora and P. veitchii have some common compounds; however, their phytochemical bioavailability varies. Furthermore, a larger number of compounds have been identified in P. lactiflora. These have greater potential for antiinflammatory, antiviral, antibacterial and antioxidant therapeutic activity compared with P. veitchii. However, evidence indicates both species are similarly indicated for antiviral and glycaemic activity. Major compounds of each are classified as flavonoids, hydrolysable tannins (polyphenols) and monoterpene glycosides. The evidence suggests both species, when administered in entire botanical form, have an excellent safety profile; however, constituent toxicity risk evidence is limited, requiring further investigation. Although experiments show many compounds have biological activity, further investigation of their therapeutic potential is needed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 38%
Student > Bachelor 6 38%
Student > Master 2 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 6%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 25%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 13%
Neuroscience 1 6%
Other 2 13%

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 09 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,981,404
of 13,381,812 outputs
Outputs from Phytotherapy Research
#749
of 2,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,231
of 265,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Phytotherapy Research
#31
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,381,812 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 265,951 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 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.