| 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 |
| Abstract |
Variation in blood pressure levels display circadian rhythms. The morning surge in blood pressure is known to increase the risk of myocardial events in the first several hours post awakening. A systematic review of the administration-time-related-effects of evening versus morning dosing regimen of antihypertensive drugs in the management of patients with primary hypertension has not been conducted. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 43 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 11 | 26% |
| Spain | 3 | 7% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Curaçao | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 25 | 58% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 38 | 88% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 5% |
| Scientists | 2 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 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 | 193 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 28 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 12% |
| Researcher | 20 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 9% |
| Other | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 48 | 24% |
| Unknown | 47 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 102 | 52% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 56 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 07 September 2022.
All research outputs
#751,739
of 24,460,744 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,473
of 12,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,915
of 136,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9
of 130 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,460,744 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 136,561 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 130 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 93% of its contemporaries.