↓ Skip to main content

Blood pressure reduction and clinical outcomes with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers: protocol for a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
Blood pressure reduction and clinical outcomes with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers: protocol for a systematic review and meta-regression analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0779-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jonathan A. Batty, Mengyao Tang, Marlous Hall, Roberto Ferrari, Martin H. Strauss, Alistair S. Hall

Abstract

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) efficaciously reduce systolic blood pressure (BP), a well-established risk factor for myocardial infarction (MI). Both inhibit the renin-angiotensin system, albeit through different mechanisms, and produce similar reductions in BP. However, in parallel meta-analyses of ACEi and ARB trials, ACEis reduce risk of MI whereas ARBs do not-a phenomenon described as the 'ARB-MI paradox'. In addition, ACEis reduce all-cause mortality, whereas ARBs do not, which appears to be independent of BP lowering. The divergent cardiovascular effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, despite similar BP reductions, are counter-intuitive. This systematic review aims to ascertain the extent to which clinical outcomes in randomised trials of ACEi and ARBs are attributable to reductions in systolic BP. A comprehensive search of bibliographic databases will be performed to identify all randomised studies of agents of the ACEi and ARB class. Placebo and active comparator-controlled studies that report clinical outcomes, with greater than 500 person-years of follow-up in each study arm, will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen study records against a priori-defined eligibility criteria and perform data extraction. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool will be applied to all included studies. Studies retracted subsequent to initial publication will be excluded. Primary outcomes of interest include MI and all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes include stroke, heart failure, revascularisation and cardiovascular mortality. Meta-regression will be performed, evaluating the relationship between attained reduction in systolic BP and relative risk of each outcome, stratified by drug class. Where a BP-dependent effect exists (two-tailed p value < 0.05), relative risks, standardised per 10 mmHg difference in BP, will be reported for each study outcome. Publication bias will be examined using Funnel plots, and calculation of Egger's statistic. This systematic review will provide a detailed synthesis of evidence regarding the relationship between BP reduction and clinical outcomes with ACEi and ARBs. Greater understanding of the dependency of the effect of each class on BP reduction will advance insight into the nature of the ARB-MI paradox and guide the future usage of these agents. PROSPERO CRD42017072988.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Researcher 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 20 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 20%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 9%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 22 48%
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 28 August 2018.
All research outputs
#5,832,615
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#996
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#100,830
of 334,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#40
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 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 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 334,301 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.