↓ Skip to main content

Retrospective Study of Reported Adverse Events Due to Complementary Health Products in Singapore From 2010 to 2016

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Retrospective Study of Reported Adverse Events Due to Complementary Health Products in Singapore From 2010 to 2016
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00167
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yimin Xu, Dhavalkumar N. Patel, Suet-Leng P. Ng, Siew-Har Tan, Dorothy Toh, Jalene Poh, Adena Theen Lim, Cheng-Leng Chan, Min-Yong Low, Hwee-Ling Koh

Abstract

The objective of this study is to collate and analyse adverse event reports associated with the use of complementary health products (CHP) submitted to the Health Sciences Authority (HSA) of Singapore for the period 2010-2016 to identify various trends and signals for pharmacovigilance purposes. A total of 147,215 adverse event reports suspected to be associated with pharmaceutical products and CHP were received by HSA between 2010 and 2016. Of these, 143,191 (97.3%) were associated with chemical drugs, 1,807 (1.2%) with vaccines, 1,324 (0.9%) with biological drugs (biologics), and 893 (0.6%) with CHP. The number of adverse event reports associated with Chinese Proprietary Medicine, other complementary medicine and health supplements are presented. Eight hundred and ninety three adverse event reports associated with CHP in the 7-year period have been successfully collated and analyzed. In agreement with other studies, adverse events related to the "skin and appendages disorders" were the most commonly reported. Most of the cases involved dermal allergies (e.g., rashes) associated with the use of glucosamine products and most of the adulterated products were associated with the illegal addition of undeclared drugs for pain relief. Dexamethasone, chlorpheniramine, and piroxicam were the most common adulterants detected. Reporting suspected adverse events is strongly encouraged even if the causality is not confirmed because any signs of clustering will allow rapid regulatory actions to be taken. The findings from this study help to create greater awareness on the health risks, albeit low, when consuming CHP and dispelling the common misconception that "natural" means "safe." In particular, healthcare professionals and the general public should be aware of potential adulteration of CHP. The analysis of spontaneously reported adverse events is an important surveillance system in monitoring the safety of CHP and helps in the understanding of the risk associated with the use of such products. Greater collaboration and communication between healthcare professionals, regulators, patients, manufacturers, researchers, and the general public are important to ensure the quality and safety of CHP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Researcher 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 16 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 16 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 06 December 2018.
All research outputs
#3,169,198
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#783
of 5,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,841
of 328,349 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#21
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 328,349 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.