↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Biochemical analysis of Cassia fistula aqueous extract and phytochemically synthesized gold nanoparticles as hypoglycemic treatment for diabetes mellitus

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
148 Mendeley
Title
Biochemical analysis of Cassia fistula aqueous extract and phytochemically synthesized gold nanoparticles as hypoglycemic treatment for diabetes mellitus
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, March 2012
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s26650
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. Daisy, Saipriya

Abstract

Cassia fistula stem bark was used for the preparation of aqueous extract and synthesis of gold nanoparticles to evaluate the hypoglycemic effects of the plant. The synthesized gold nanoparticles were characterized by ultraviolet-visible spectroscopy for their absorbance pattern, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy to identify possible functional groups, and scanning electron microscopy to determine the size of the nanoparticles. The present investigation reports the efficacy of the gold nanoparticles as promising in the treatment of hyperglycemia. Body weight, serum glucose concentrations, liver function tests, kidney function tests, and lipid profile were analyzed. A significantly larger decrease in serum biochemistry parameters and an increase in body weight, total protein levels, and high-density lipoprotein were observed in rats with streptozotocin-induced diabetes treated with gold nanoparticles than in the ones treated with the aqueous extract. The results of this study confirm that C. fistula gold nanoparticles have promising antidiabetic properties.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 148 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Unknown 147 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 27%
Student > Master 24 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 11%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Researcher 10 7%
Other 18 12%
Unknown 26 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 35 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 18 12%
Chemistry 14 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 5%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 39 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 07 March 2012.
All research outputs
#9,957,199
of 12,438,331 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#1,918
of 2,456 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,890
of 120,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#43
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,438,331 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,456 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% 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 120,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.