↓ Skip to main content

Systematic Review of Phytotherapeutic Treatments for Different Farm Animals Under European Conditions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 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 (70th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Systematic Review of Phytotherapeutic Treatments for Different Farm Animals Under European Conditions
Published in
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fvets.2018.00140
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lena-Mari Tamminen, Ulf Emanuelson, Isabel Blanco-Penedo

Abstract

The emergence and spread of antibiotic resistance is a growing global threat and has aroused a global interest in limiting antibiotic use in animal agriculture. As we are entering the post-antibiotic era, there is a growing need for identifying alternatives to antibiotics for prevention and treatment. Although phytotherapeutic remedies are available and are used in Europe, evidence of their efficacy is currently very limited but is nevertheless still necessary. A systematic review of phytotherapy used for the treatment and prevention of infectious diseases in farm animals has been conducted using the PICOS approach. Analysis and extraction of information from studies was performed according to a protocol, and included: publication year and source, research body, species, farming system, purpose of application, disease in focus, diagnostic method, remedy used (origin and ingredients of the remedy), producer of remedy, way of administration, study design, and control groups, measure of effect, and outcome of the study. A total of 1,705 papers were screened, but only 44 (comprising 53 independent studies) met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the scientific studies identified show limitations in the study design as well as in presentation and standardization of the botanical remedies studied, which limits the possibilities of drawing firm conclusions. Preventive effect was investigated in 89% of the studies. Half of the studies reported uncertain effects of the botanical remedies on subclinical measures in comparison to a control group. The review highlights unresolved questions such as the need for standardized controlled trials and for improved standardization of the botanical products by analytical methods, such as high-performance liquid chromatography. It is necessary to consider this in order to achieve replicable outcomes and establish efficacy and safety of phytotherapy in farm practice. The manageability of alternative medicine in farm animals also warrants further investigation so as to ascertain whether all necessary preconditions for their use are being granted.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Master 7 10%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 25 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 26%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 10 15%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 6%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 7 10%
Unknown 24 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 August 2022.
All research outputs
#5,583,143
of 23,146,350 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#878
of 6,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,219
of 328,801 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#29
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,146,350 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,429 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. 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 328,801 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 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 68% of its contemporaries.