↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Chinese medicinal herbs for mumps

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
Title
Chinese medicinal herbs for mumps
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008578.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Min Shu, Yi Qiong Zhang, Zhiyao Li, Guan J Liu, Chaomin Wan, Yang Wen

Abstract

Mumps is an infectious disease caused by the mumps virus. Chinese physicians generally believe that Chinese medicinal herbs are effective in alleviating symptoms and reducing the duration of mumps. Herbalists tend to develop a treatment plan according to the individual's symptoms. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Chinese medicinal herbs combined with routine treatments for mumps. We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1948 to January week 4, 2015), EMBASE (1974 to February 2015), CINAHL (1981 to February 2015), AMED (1985 to April 2014), the Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) (1980 to February 2015), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to February 2015), VIP Information (1989 to February 2015), and relevant databases of ongoing trials. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of Chinese medicinal herbs for mumps (with or without complications). Two review authors independently evaluated trial quality and conducted data extraction. We contacted the trial authors for missing data regarding participant allocation. Some trials allocated participants according to the participants' admission sequence, making it a pseudo-random allocation. None of the trials concealed participants' allocation or used blinding. We did not identify any eligible trials for inclusion. We identified 108 studies that claimed to use random allocation. We excluded 104 studies because the allocation methods the authors had used were not actually randomised. We were unable to contact the trial authors of the remaining four studies. These trials require further evaluation and have been allocated to the 'Studies awaiting classification' section. We did not find any RCTs for or against Chinese herbal medicine used in the treatment of mumps. We hope more high-quality RCTs will be conducted in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 92 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 15%
Student > Master 10 11%
Other 7 8%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 6%
Other 16 17%
Unknown 33 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 35 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 15 November 2019.
All research outputs
#5,882,369
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,661
of 12,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,652
of 265,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#170
of 254 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 265,112 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 254 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.