↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Aromatherapy for dementia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
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 (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
33 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
95 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
278 Mendeley
Title
Aromatherapy for dementia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003150.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lene Thorgrimsen Forrester, Nicola Maayan, Martin Orrell, Aimee E Spector, Louise D Buchan, Karla Soares-Weiser

Abstract

Complementary therapy has received great interest within the field of dementia treatment and the use of aromatherapy and essential oils is increasing. In a growing population where the majority of patients are treated by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs, the efficacy of treatment is short term and accompanied by negative side effects. Utilisation of complimentary therapies in dementia care settings presents as one of few options that are attractive to practitioners and families as patients often have reduced insight and ability to verbally communicate adverse reactions. Amongst the most distressing features of dementia are the behavioural and psychological symptoms. Addressing this facet has received particular interest in aromatherapy trials, with a shift in focus from reducing cognitive dysfunction to the reduction of behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 278 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 274 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 45 16%
Researcher 39 14%
Student > Bachelor 37 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 13%
Student > Postgraduate 18 6%
Other 57 21%
Unknown 45 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 47 17%
Psychology 30 11%
Social Sciences 14 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Other 43 15%
Unknown 56 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 05 February 2020.
All research outputs
#466,555
of 18,899,605 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,002
of 11,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,421
of 196,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#23
of 201 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,899,605 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 196,815 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 201 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.