↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pharmacotherapy for hyperuricemia in hypertensive patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
Title
Pharmacotherapy for hyperuricemia in hypertensive patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008652.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pedro Henrique França Gois, Edison Regio de Moraes Souza

Abstract

High blood pressure represents a major public health problem. Worldwide, approximately one-fourth of the adult population has hypertension. Epidemiological and experimental studies suggest a link between hyperuricemia and hypertension. Hyperuricemia affects 25% to 40 % of individuals with untreated hypertension; a much lower prevalence has been reported in normotensives or in the general population. However, whether lowering serum uric acid (UA) might lower blood pressure (BP) is an unanswered question. To determine whether UA-lowering agents reduce BP in patients with primary hypertension or prehypertension compared with placebo. The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to February 2016: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 2), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched LILACS up to March 2016 and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. To be included in this review, the studies had to meet the following criteria: 1) randomized or quasi-randomized, with a group assigned to receive a UA-lowering agent and another group assigned to receive placebo; 2) double-blind, single-blind or open-label; 3) parallel or cross-over trial; 4) cross-over trials had to have a washout period of at least two weeks; 5) minimum treatment duration of four weeks; 6) participants had to have a diagnosis of essential hypertension or prehypertension, and hyperuricemia (serum UA greater than 6 mg/dL in women, 7 mg/dL in men and 5.5 mg/dL in children/adolescents); 7) outcome measures assessed included change in clinic systolic, diastolic or 24-hour ambulatory BP. The two review authors independently collected the data using a data extraction form, and resolved any disagreements via discussion. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration' Risk of bias' tool. In this review update, we examined the abstracts of 349 identified papers and selected 21 for evaluation. We also identified three ongoing studies, the results of which are not yet available. Three other randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (two new), enrolling individuals with hypertension or prehypertension, and hyperuricemia, met the inclusion criteria for the review and were included in the meta-analysis. Low quality of evidence from three RCTs indicate no reduction in systolic (MD -6.2 mmHg, 95% CI -12.8 to 0.5) or diastolic (-3.9 mmHg, 95% CI -9.2 to 1.4) 24-hour ambulatory BP with UA-lowering drugs compared with placebo. Low quality of evidence from two RCTs reveal a reduction of systolic clinic BP (-8.43 mmHg, 95% CI -15.24 to -1.62) but not diastolic clinic BP (-6.45 mmHg, 95% CI -13.60 to 0.70). High quality of evidence from three RCTs indicates that serum UA levels were reduced by 3.1 mg/dL (95% CI 2.4 to 3.8) in the participants that received UA-lowering drugs. Very low quality of evidence from three RCTs suggests that withdrawals due to adverse effects were not increased with UA-lowering therapy (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.43 to 8.10). In this updated systematic review, the RCT data available at present are insufficient to know whether UA-lowering therapy also lowers BP. More studies are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 29 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 33 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 25 February 2018.
All research outputs
#1,871,866
of 16,153,077 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,528
of 11,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,158
of 269,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#117
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,153,077 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% 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 269,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.