The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Blood pressure targets for hypertension in people with diabetes mellitus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008277.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jose Agustin Arguedas, Viriam Leiva, James M Wright |
| Abstract |
When treating elevated blood pressure (BP), doctors often want to know what blood pressure target they should try to achieve. The standard blood pressure target in clinical practice for some time has been less than 140 - 160/90 - 100 mmHg for the general population of people with elevated blood pressure. Several clinical guidelines published in recent years have recommended lower targets (less than 130/80 mmHg) for people with diabetes mellitus. It is not known whether attempting to achieve targets lower than the standard target reduces mortality and morbidity in those with elevated blood pressure and diabetes. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 8 | 22% |
| Canada | 3 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 24 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 29 | 81% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 8% |
| Scientists | 2 | 6% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 359 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | 1% |
| United States | 2 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Peru | 1 | <1% |
| Tanzania, United Republic of | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 349 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 51 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 40 | 11% |
| Researcher | 37 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 36 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 25 | 7% |
| Other | 79 | 22% |
| Unknown | 91 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 168 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 2% |
| Other | 34 | 9% |
| Unknown | 103 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. 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 20 June 2024.
All research outputs
#1,080,301
of 26,369,714 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,022
of 13,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,364
of 227,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#39
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,369,714 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,211 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 227,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.