↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Padma 28 for intermittent claudication

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

4 tweeters
1 Facebook page

Readers on

145 Mendeley
Padma 28 for intermittent claudication
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007371.pub3
Pubmed ID

Marlene Stewart, Joanne R Morling, Heather Maxwell


Intermittent claudication (IC) is pain caused by chronic occlusive arterial disease that develops in a limb during exercise and is relieved with rest. Most drug treatments of IC have a limited effect in improving walking distance. Padma 28, a Tibetan herbal preparation, has been used to treat IC, but there is debate as to whether Padma 28 produces a clinical benefit beyond the placebo effect. This is an update of a review first published in 2013. To determine whether Padma 28 is effective, compared with placebo or other medications, in increasing pain-free and maximum walking distance for patients with intermittent claudication. For this update the Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (September 2015), the Cochrane Register of Studies ((CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 8)) and clinical trials databases. Randomised controlled trials of Padma 28 compared with placebo or other pharmacological treatments in people suffering from IC. All review authors independently assessed the selected studies and extracted the data. Risk of bias was evaluated independently by two review authors. Depending on the data provided in the individual trials, we extracted mean or median walking distance at the end of the trial, or change in walking distance over the course of the trial, or both. Where not provided, and whenever possible, the statistical significance of differences in these parameters between treatment and placebo groups in individual trials was calculated. Where possible, data were combined by meta-analysis. No new trials were identified in the search for this review update. In total five trials involving 365 participants were included in this review. All trials compared Padma 28 with placebo for at least 16 weeks of follow-up. Pain-free and maximum walking distances both increased significantly in the groups treated with Padma 28, with no significant change in the placebo group. In general, the studies presented results comparing the treatment arms before and after treatment but made no comparisons between the Padma 28 and placebo groups. Pooled data of maximum walking distance after treatment with Padma 28 and placebo from two studies (193 participants) indicated a higher maximum walking distance (mean difference (MD) 95.97 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) 79.07 m to 112.88 m, P < 0.00001, very low quality evidence) in the Padma 28 group compared with placebo. The clinical importance of these observed changes in walking distance is unclear as no quality of life data were reported. There was no effect on ankle brachial index (ABI): change in ABI values between baseline and six months follow up MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.05, 1 study, 56 participants, P = 0.72, very low quality evidence). Mild side effects, especially gastrointestinal discomfort, tiredness and skin eruption, were reported but this outcome was not different between the Padma 28 and placebo groups (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.83, four studies, 231 participants, P = 0.86, very low quality evidence). Some evidence exists from individual trials to suggest that Padma 28 may be effective in increasing walking distances, at least in the short term (four months), in people with IC. Side effects do not appear to be a problem. However, the longer term effects of treatment are unknown and the clinical significance of the improvements in walking distance are questionable. Moreover, the quality of the evidence is limited by the small sample size of the available trials, limited reporting of statistical analyses that compared treatment groups, and relatively high withdrawal rates that were linked to the outcome. That is, patients were withdrawn if they failed to improve walking distance. There was also evidence of publication bias. We therefore feel there is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regards the effectiveness of Padma 28 in the routine management of IC. Further well-designed research would be required to determine the true effects of this herbal preparation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 145 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 23%
Researcher 17 12%
Student > Bachelor 16 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 4%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 32 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 14%
Psychology 6 4%
Sports and Recreations 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 38 26%

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 20 April 2016.
All research outputs
of 19,214,062 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 273,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 191 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,214,062 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 273,781 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 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 191 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.