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.
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 |
Meta-Analysis for Clinical Evaluation of Xingnaojing Injection for the Treatment of Cerebral Infarction
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Pharmacology, August 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphar.2017.00485 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiao Ma, Yu X. Yang, Nian Chen, Qian Xie, Tao Wang, Xuan He, Jian Wang |
| Abstract |
Objective: Xingnaojing injection (XNJ) is derived from An-Gong-Niu-Huang pill, a well-known traditional Chinese patent medicine, which is widely used for stroke. To evaluate the therapeutic effect of XNJ on cerebral infarction, an extensive meta-analysis was used. Methods: Six major electronic databases including the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM), Wanfang, the VIP medicine information system (VMIS) and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were examined to retrieve randomized controlled trials designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of XNJ in treating CI before November 26, 2016. Results: There were 53 randomized controlled trials with 4915 participants in this study. The results reflected that compared with the conventional therapy (CT) alone, XNJ could significantly improve the overall response rate (OR = 3.56, 95% CI [2.94, 4.32], P < 0.00001), and clinical symptom (including increasing activities of daily living (ADL, MD = 10.23, 95% CI [9.47, 10.99], P < 0.00001), and reduce infarction size (MD = -1.83, 95% CI [-2.49, -1.16], P < 0.00001)). However, there was no significant difference between the XNJ treatment and conventional therapy in Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS, P = 0.32). Neurological deficit score demonstrated that XNJ could significantly reduce the score in two different evaluation criterions as National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS, MD = -3.44, 95% CI [-4.52, -2.36], P < 0.00001), and the Chinese Stroke Scale (CSS, MD = -5.72, 95% CI [-6.94, -4.50], P < 0.00001). Additionally, serum MMPs, including MMP-2 and MMP-9 were significantly reduced by XNJ treatment compared with conventional therapy (MD = -11.24, 95% CI [-20.83, -1.65], P = 0.02; MD = -25.08, 95% CI [-35.49, -14.67], P < 0.00001, respectively). Moreover, XNJ was able to improve hemorrheology in reducing whole blood viscosity, plasma viscosity, and hematocrit (MD = -1.44, 95% CI [-2.18, 0.70], P = 0.001; MD = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.37, -0.07], P = 0.003; MD = -3.63, 95% CI [-6.23, -1.03], P = 0.006, respectively). The therapeutic efficacy of XNJ was found associated with improving hemodynamics (increasing peak-flow rate, and average velocity) (MD = 12.66, 95% CI [10.50, 14.81], P < 0.00001; MD = 9.90, 95% CI [8.63, 11.17], P < 0.00001). XNJ was also related to reducing cholesterol and triglyceride (MD = -1.06, 95% CI [-1.21, -0.92], P < 0.00001; MD = -1.05, 95% CI [-1.12, -0.97], P < 0.00001). Conclusion: Despite the sample size and the poor quality of the included studies of this review, the results of the research showed that XNJ might be a beneficial therapeutic method for the treatment of cerebral infarction. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 5 | 28% |
| Professor | 1 | 6% |
| Librarian | 1 | 6% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 56% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unspecified | 5 | 28% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 56% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 August 2017.
All research outputs
#20,444,703
of 22,999,744 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#10,193
of 16,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#275,890
of 315,948 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pharmacology
#163
of 263 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,999,744 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,305 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 315,948 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 263 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.