You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparative effectiveness of monotherapies and combination therapies for patients with hypertension: protocol for a systematic review with network meta-analyses
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, June 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/2046-4053-2-44 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Brian Hutton, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Fatemeh Yazdi, Justin Thielman, Salmaan Kanji, Dean Fergusson, Lise Bjerre, Edward Mills, Kristian Thorlund, Andrea Tricco, Sharon Straus, David Moher, Frans HH Leenen |
| Abstract |
Hypertension has been cited as the most common attributable risk factor for death worldwide, and in Canada more than one of every five adults had this diagnosis in 2007. In addition to different lifestyle modifications, such as diet and exercise, there exist many pharmaco-therapies from different drug classes which can be used to lower blood pressure, thereby reducing the risk of serious clinical outcomes. In moderate and severe cases, more than one agent may be used. The optimal mono- and combination therapies for mild hypertension and moderate/severe hypertension are unclear, and clinical guidelines provide different recommendations for first line therapy. The objective of this review is to explore the relative benefits and safety of different pharmacotherapies for management of non-diabetic patients with hypertension, whether of a mild or moderate to severe nature. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 137 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 137 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 7% |
| Other | 34 | 25% |
| Unknown | 33 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 28% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 20 | 15% |
| Psychology | 16 | 12% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 18 | 13% |
| Unknown | 37 | 27% |
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 03 July 2013.
All research outputs
#18,341,369
of 22,713,403 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,776
of 1,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,848
of 195,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#22
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,713,403 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 1,987 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% 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 195,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.