↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Preparation and evaluation of a multimodal minoxidil microemulsion versus minoxidil alone in the treatment of androgenic alopecia of mixed etiology: a pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 1,803)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
3 tweeters
patent
2 patents
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
2 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Preparation and evaluation of a multimodal minoxidil microemulsion versus minoxidil alone in the treatment of androgenic alopecia of mixed etiology: a pilot study
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, May 2013
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s43481
Pubmed ID
Authors

Farouk Farouk Sakr, Ali Gado, Haseebur Mohammed, Adam Abdel Nasser Ismail

Abstract

The variable success of topical minoxidil in the treatment of androgenic alopecia has led to the hypothesis that other pathways could mediate this form of hair loss, including infection and/or microinflammation of the hair follicles. In this study, we prepared a multimodal microemulsion comprising minoxidil (a dihydrotestosterone antagonist), diclofenac (a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent), and tea tree oil (an anti-infective agent). We investigated the stability and physicochemical properties of this formulation, and its therapeutic efficacy compared with a formulation containing minoxidil alone in the treatment of androgenic alopecia.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 65 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 20%
Researcher 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 26%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 21%
Chemistry 4 6%
Psychology 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 15 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 22 June 2021.
All research outputs
#1,003,650
of 18,596,150 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#38
of 1,803 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,467
of 168,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,596,150 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,803 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 168,262 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.