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 |
Efficacy and safety of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists for patients with heart failure and diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12872-016-0198-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Meng-Die Chen, Si-Si Dong, Ning-Yu Cai, Meng-Di Fan, Su-Ping Gu, Jin-Jue Zheng, Hai-Min Yin, Xin-He Zhou, Liang-Xue Wang, Chun-Ying Li, Chao Zheng |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) for patients with heart failure (HF) and diabetes mellitus (DM). We conducted a comprehensive search for controlled studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of MRAs in patients with DM and HF. Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched. Two reviewers independently identified citations, extracted data and evaluated quality. Risk estimations were abstracted and pooled where appropriate. Four observational studies were included. MRAs use was associated with reduced mortality compared with controls (RR = 0.78; 95 % CI: 0.69-0.88; I (2) = 0 %; P < 0.001). Increased risk of developing hyperkalaemia was observed in those patients taking MRAs (RR = 1.74; 95 % CI: 1.27-2.38; I (2) = 0 %; P = 0.0005). The current cumulative evidence suggests that MRAs can improve clinical outcomes but increase the risk of hyperkalaemia in patients with DM and HF. PROSPERO CRD42015025690 . |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 2 | 40% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 4 | 11% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 12 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 47% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 13 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 11 March 2016.
All research outputs
#6,745,435
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#353
of 1,611 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,148
of 396,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
#5
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,611 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 396,346 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.