↓ Skip to main content

Biochemical Benefits, Diagnosis, and Clinical Risks Evaluation of Kratom

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
11 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
16 X users
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
video
1 YouTube creator

Readers on

mendeley
181 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
Biochemical Benefits, Diagnosis, and Clinical Risks Evaluation of Kratom
Published in
Frontiers in Psychiatry, April 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00062
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimy Fluyau, Neelambika Revadigar

Abstract

Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) is a tropical tree with a long history of traditional use in parts of Africa and Southeast Asia. Kratom is also known as Thom, Thang, and Biak. Its leaves and the teas brewed from them have long been used by people in that region to manage pain and opioid withdrawal and to stave off fatigue. Kratom is actually consumed throughout the world for its stimulant effects and as an opioid substitute (in form of tea, chewed, smoked, or ingested in capsules). Some case reports have associated kratom exposure with psychosis, seizures, intrahepatic cholestasis, other medical conditions, and deaths. The clinical manifestations of kratom effects are not well defined and the clinical studies are limited. Data research suggest that both stimulant and sedative dose-dependent effects do exist, in addition to antinociceptive, antidepressant activity, anxiolytic-like effects, and anorectic effects, but a growing concern for the drug's effects and safety of use has resulted in national and international attention primarily due to an increase in hospital visits and deaths in several countries that are believed to have been caused by extracts of the plant. There is a dearth of double blind controlled studies. In this study, we aim to use existing literature to clarify both benefits and risks of kratom as well as its diagnosis evaluation as kratom misuse is an emerging trend in the Western world. Literature review using databases such as Embase, Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Mendeley from 2007 to 2017 were evaluated by all authors to analyze current state on benefits, risks, and diagnosis evaluation of kratom (M. speciosa). Data analysis suggested that kratom possesses some benefits such as stimulant and sedative effects as wells as antinociceptive effects. It seems to inhibit pro-inflammatory mediator release and vascular permeability and can enhance immunity. In addition, it may be an antidepressant and anorectic. However, kratom can cause intrahepatic cholestasis, seizure, arrhythmia, impair memory function, coma, and death. Psychological manifestations described are euphoria and feeling relaxed to severe symptoms such as aggression, hostility, and psychosis. Medical manifestations described are polyuria, dry mouth, vomiting, and jerky movements. Currently, liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry and ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) are suggested as the most promising to rapidly screen kratom products providing a positive success rate. Our data analysis has not determined if biochemical benefits of kratom may prove to outweigh its toxicity and risks. On the contrary, it seems that its potential side effects outweigh the benefits, and severe and real health hazards can, insidiously, lead to death. Kratom clinical, psychological, and medical manifestations can be disturbing. Kratom (M. speciosa) use, among multiple compounds of the leaf, appear to be increasing in the Western world. Promising methods to accurately identify kratom compounds are still ongoing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 181 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 25 14%
Student > Master 17 9%
Researcher 15 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 73 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 9%
Psychology 13 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Neuroscience 9 5%
Other 36 20%
Unknown 73 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 120. 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 18 March 2024.
All research outputs
#350,407
of 25,515,042 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#220
of 12,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,295
of 323,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychiatry
#3
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,515,042 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,781 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 323,725 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 96% of its contemporaries.