↓ Skip to main content

Phlebotonics for haemorrhoids

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
Phlebotonics for haemorrhoids
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004322.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nirmal Perera, Danae Liolitsa, Satheesh Iype, Anna Croxford, Muhammed Yassin, Peter Lang, Obioha Ukaegbu, Christopher van Issum

Abstract

Haemorrhoids are variceal dilatations of the anal and perianal venous plexus and often develop secondary to the persistently elevated venous pressure within the haemorrhoidal plexus (Kumar 2005). Phlebotonics are a heterogenous class of drugs consisting of plant extracts (i.e. flavonoids) and synthetic compounds (i.e. calcium dobesilate). Although their precise mechanism of action has not been fully established, they are known to improve venous tone, stabilize capillary permeability and increase lymphatic drainage. They have been used to treat a variety of conditions including chronic venous insufficiency, lymphoedema and haemorrhoids.Numerous trials assessing the effect of phlebotonics in treating the symptoms and signs of haemorrhoidal disease suggest that there is a potential benefit.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 1%
India 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Singapore 1 1%
Croatia 1 1%
Unknown 90 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 24%
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 7 7%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 16 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 08 November 2019.
All research outputs
#2,539,598
of 14,249,108 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,313
of 10,915 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,991
of 127,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#45
of 119 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,249,108 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,915 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 127,932 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 119 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 62% of its contemporaries.