↓ Skip to main content

Panic disorder and incident coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
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.
Title
Panic disorder and incident coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0026-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Phillip J Tully, Gary A Wittert, Deborah A Turnbull, John F Beltrame, John D Horowitz, Suzanne Cosh, Harald Baumeister

Abstract

The clinical presentation of panic disorder and panic attack overlaps many symptoms typically experienced in coronary heart disease (CHD). Etiological links between panic disorder and CHD are controversial and remain largely tenuous. This systematic review aims to pool together data regarding panic disorder with respect to incident CHD or myocardial infarction. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS) will be searched using a search strategy exploding the topics for CHD and panic disorder. Authors and reference lists of included studies will also be contacted to identify additional published and unpublished studies. Eligibility criteria are as follows: Population: persons without CHD who meet criteria for panic disorder, panic attack, anxiety neurosis or elevated panic disorder symptoms; Comparison: persons without CHD who do not meet criteria for panic disorder, panic attack, anxiety neurosis or elevated panic disorder symptoms; Outcome: verified fatal and non-fatal CHD at follow-up; including coronary revascularization procedure, coronary artery disease, and myocardial infarction. Studies adopting self-report CHD will be ineligible. Screening will be undertaken by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion. Data extraction will include original data specified as hazard ratios, risk ratios, and original cell data if available. Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers. Meta-analytic methods will be used to synthesize the data collected relating to the CHD outcomes with Cochrane Review Manager 5.3. This systematic review aims to clarify whether panic disorder is associated with elevated risk for subsequent CHD. An evaluation of the etiological links between panic disorder with incident CHD might inform evidence-based clinical practice and policy concerning triaging chest pain patients, diagnostic assessment, and psychiatric intervention with panic disorder patients. PROSPERO CRD42014014891 .

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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 60 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 15%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Researcher 6 10%
Other 14 23%
Unknown 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 30%
Psychology 12 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 13 21%

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 21 April 2020.
All research outputs
#9,441,914
of 17,499,602 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,073
of 1,581 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,876
of 230,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,499,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,581 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 230,512 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 58% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them