The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
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 |
Efficacy and Safety of Panax notoginseng Saponin Therapy for Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage, Meta-Analysis, and Mini Review of Potential Mechanisms of Action
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fneur.2014.00274 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dongying Xu, Ping Huang, Zhaosheng Yu, Daniel H. Xing, Shuai Ouyang, Guoqiang Xing |
| Abstract |
Intracranial/intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a leading cause of death and disability in people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke. No proven drug is available for ICH. Panax notoginseng (total saponin extraction, PNS) is one of the most valuable herb medicines for stroke and cerebralvascular disorders in China. We searched for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) involving PNS injection to treat cerebral hemorrhage for meta-analysis from various databases including the Chinese Stroke Trials Register, the trials register of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Chinese BioMedical disk, and China Doctorate/Master Dissertations Databases. The quality of the eligible trials was assessed by Jadad's scale. Twenty (20) of the 24 identified randomized controlled trials matched the inclusive criteria including 984 ICH patients with PNS injection and 907 ICH patients with current treatment (CT). Compared to the CT groups, PNS-treated patients showed better outcomes in the effectiveness rate (ER), neurological deficit score, intracranial hematoma volume, intracerebral edema volume, Barthel index, the number of patients died, and incidence of adverse events. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 89 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 18 | 20% |
| Unknown | 27 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 26% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 11% |
| Psychology | 7 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 28 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 May 2015.
All research outputs
#13,419,571
of 22,776,824 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#5,241
of 11,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,852
of 352,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#40
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,776,824 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,666 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% 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 352,357 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 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 50% of its contemporaries.