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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Therapeutic Efficacy and Safety of Traditional Chinese Medicine Classic Herbal Formula Longdanxiegan Decoction for Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pharmacology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphar.2018.00466 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xing-jiang Xiong, Xiao-chen Yang, Wei Liu, Lian Duan, Peng-qian Wang, Hu You, Xiao-ke Li, Shihan Wang |
| Abstract |
Background: The traditional Chinese medicine classic herbal formula Longdanxiegan decoction (LDXGD) is widely used for hypertensive patients in China. Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LDXGD for hypertension. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database were searched up to February 7, 2017 for randomized control trials in treating hypertension. Results: Nine trials were identified. Compared with antihypertensive drugs, Longdanxiegan decoction plus antihypertensive drugs (LPAD) significantly improved systolic blood pressure (BP) (n = 138; MD = -4.82 mmHg; 95% CI: -7.89 to -1.76; P = 0.002), diastolic BP (n = 138; MD = -2.42 mmHg; 95% CI: -3.22 to -1.62; P < 0.00001), categorical BP (n = 509; RR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.36; P < 0.00001), hypertension related symptoms (n = 509; RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.49; P < 0.0001), and heart rate (n = 138; MD = -2.40 bpm; 95% CI: -4.23 to -0.56; P = 0.01). Beneficial effects but no statistically significant reduction in total cholesterol (n = 138; MD = -0.11 mmol/l; 95% CI: -0.65 to 0.44; P = 0.71), or triglyceride (n = 138; MD = -0.20 mmol/l; 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.07; P = 0.14) was observed in LPAD. Compared with antihypertensive drugs, LDXGD used alone significantly improved systolic BP, diastolic BP, and hypertension related symptoms. But there was no difference between LDXGD and antihypertensive drugs on categorical BP (n = 120; RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.23; P = 0.18). The safety of LDXGD were still unclear. Conclusions: Due to poor methodological quality of the included trials, as well as potential reporting bias, our review found no conclusive evidence for the effectiveness of LDXGD in treating hypertension. The potential beneficial effects and safety of LDXGD should be assessed in future properly designed trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 27 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 15% |
| Researcher | 3 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 41% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 11% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 7% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 11 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 24 August 2020.
All research outputs
#2,593,367
of 23,054,359 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#974
of 16,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,559
of 327,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#34
of 409 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,054,359 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,383 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 327,698 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 409 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 91% of its contemporaries.