The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 44 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 |
Evening versus morning dosing regimen drug therapy for hypertension
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd004184.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ping Zhao, Ping Xu, Chaomin Wan, Zhengrong Wang |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 11 | 25% |
| Spain | 3 | 7% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 26 | 59% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 38 | 86% |
| Scientists | 3 | 7% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Sweden | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 187 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 25 | 13% |
| Researcher | 21 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 14 | 7% |
| Other | 45 | 23% |
| Unknown | 50 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 92 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 59 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 69. 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 06 March 2024.
All research outputs
#655,226
of 26,381,372 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,121
of 13,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,480
of 147,990 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4
of 128 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,381,372 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th 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 35.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 147,990 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 128 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.