↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Efficacy and safety of topical herbal medicine treatment on recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a systemic review

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
89 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy and safety of topical herbal medicine treatment on recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a systemic review
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, December 2015
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s96589
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chun-Lei Li, He-Long Huang, Wan-Chun Wang, Hong Hua

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical treatment with natural herbal medicines on recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS). Nine electronic databases were searched to identify the randomized controlled trials and clinical controlled trials that reported the potential effect of natural herbal medicines on RAS published in Chinese or English. Ulcer size and duration, and remission of pain were assessed as main outcome measures. The methodological quality of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Handbook for Systemic Review of Interventions and Rev Man software. Thirteen trials with a total of 1,515 patients were included in the present analysis, which showed that topical treatment with natural herbal medicines seemed to benefit RAS patients by reducing ulcer size, shortening ulcer duration, and relieving pain without severe side effects. In conclusion, there is some evidence of the efficacy of topically applied natural herbal medicines with regards to improved RAS outcome measures and fewer side effects. However, given the limitations of this study, the evidence remains insufficient. Well-designed and high-quality randomized controlled trials are required for further exploration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 89 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 88 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Student > Master 7 8%
Unspecified 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Researcher 5 6%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 34 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 31%
Unspecified 6 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 37 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 September 2019.
All research outputs
#6,388,470
of 25,420,980 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#417
of 2,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,304
of 395,696 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#17
of 94 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,420,980 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,271 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 395,696 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 94 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.