↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Chinese herbal medicine Huangqi type formulations for nephrotic syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
127 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Chinese herbal medicine Huangqi type formulations for nephrotic syndrome
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006335.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mei Feng, Wei Yuan, Renzhong Zhang, Ping Fu, Taixiang Wu

Abstract

Patients with primary nephrotic syndrome mostly need immunosuppression to achieve remission, but many of them either relapse after immunosuppression therapy or resistant to it. On the other hand, immunosuppression therapy could increase the adverse effect. Huangqi and Huangqi type formulations have been used to treat nephrotic syndrome for years in China, however the effects and safety of these formulations have not been systematically reviewed. This is an update of a review first published in 2008.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 127 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 13%
Researcher 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 9 7%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 45 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 5%
Psychology 4 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 49 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 17 June 2022.
All research outputs
#14,657,487
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,845
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,732
of 210,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#232
of 285 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 210,184 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 285 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.