↓ Skip to main content

A Randomized, Double-Blind and Placebo-Controlled Study of a Ganoderma lucidum Polysaccharide Extract in Neurasthenia

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medicinal Food, March 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
3 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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 Randomized, Double-Blind and Placebo-Controlled Study of a Ganoderma lucidum Polysaccharide Extract in Neurasthenia
Published in
Journal of Medicinal Food, March 2005
DOI 10.1089/jmf.2005.8.53
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wenbo Tang, Yihuai Gao, Guoliang Chen, He Gao, Xihu Dai, Jinxian Ye, Eli Chan, Min Huang, Shufeng Zhou

Abstract

Ganoderma lucidum has been widely used to treat various diseases, including cancer, diabetes, and neurasthenia in many Asian countries. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of a polysaccharide extract of G. lucidum (Ganopoly) in Chinese patients with neurasthenia. One hundred thirty-two patients with neurasthenia according to the diagnosis criteria of the 10th International Classification of Diseases were included in this study. Written consents were obtained from the patients, and the study was conducted in accordance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Patients were randomized to receive Ganopoly or placebo orally at 1,800 mg three times a day for 8 weeks. Efficacy assessments comprised the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) improvement of severity scale and the Visual Analogues Scales for the sense of fatigue and well-being. In 123 assessable patients in two treatment groups at the end of the study, Ganopoly treatment for 8 weeks resulted in significantly lower scores after 8 weeks in the CGI severity score and sense of fatigue, with a respective reduction of 15.5% and 28.3% from baseline, whereas the reductions in the placebo group were 4.9% and 20.1%, respectively. The score at day 56 in the sense of well-being increased from baseline to 38.7% in the Ganopoly group compared with 29.7% in the placebo group. The distribution of the five possible outcomes from very much improved to minimally worse was significantly different (X (2) = 10.55; df = 4; P = .0322) after treatment with Ganopoly or placebo. There was a percentage of 51.6% (32 of 62) in the Ganopoly group rated as more than minimally improved compared with 24.6% (15 of 61) in the placebo group (X (2) = 9.51; df = 1; P = .002). Ganopoly was well tolerated in the study patients. These findings indicated that Ganopoly was significantly superior to placebo with respect to the clinical improvement of symptoms in neurasthenia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Singapore 1 2%
Unknown 48 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 22%
Researcher 9 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Other 4 8%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 22%
Psychology 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 7 14%
Unknown 11 22%

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 October 2019.
All research outputs
#4,259,272
of 14,104,168 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medicinal Food
#418
of 1,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,538
of 131,726 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medicinal Food
#13
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,104,168 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 1,152 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 131,726 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.