↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Chinese herbal medicines for treating skin and soft‐tissue infections

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
155 Mendeley
Title
Chinese herbal medicines for treating skin and soft‐tissue infections
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010619.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yun Fei Wang, Hua Fa Que, Yong‐Jun Wang, Xue Jun Cui

Abstract

Skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs) are common infections of the epidermis, dermis or subcutaneous tissue. SSTIs range in severity from minor, self-limiting, superficial infections to deep, aggressive, gangrenous, life-threatening infections. Some classifications divide SSTIs into 'complicated' and 'uncomplicated' infections based on clinical severity. Treatments of SSTIs involves antibiotic therapy, surgical debridement or drainage, and resuscitation if required. Sometimes these treatments are limited by high treatment costs, bacterial resistance to antibiotics and side effects, therefore, many people with SSTIs are turning to Chinese herbal medicines to treat this problem.Chinese herbal medicines are natural substances that have been used for centuries in China where they are generally considered to be effective for SSTIs. Some Chinese herbal medicines have been shown to have antibacterial and anti-inflammatory properties, although a few herbal medicines have been reported to have side effects. Therefore there is a need to review the current clinical evidence systematically to inform current practice and guide future studies on Chinese herbal medicines for SSTIs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 155 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 155 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 15%
Researcher 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 8%
Student > Postgraduate 11 7%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 55 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 8%
Psychology 7 5%
Immunology and Microbiology 4 3%
Computer Science 2 1%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 63 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 20 June 2020.
All research outputs
#7,811,404
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,625
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,603
of 240,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#175
of 239 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
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 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 240,219 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 239 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.