↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Blood pressure-lowering treatment for preventing recurrent stroke, major vascular events, and dementia in patients with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2018
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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
32 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
178 Mendeley
Title
Blood pressure-lowering treatment for preventing recurrent stroke, major vascular events, and dementia in patients with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007858.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas P Zonneveld, Edo Richard, Mervyn DI Vergouwen, Paul J Nederkoorn, Rob J de Haan, Yvo BWEM Roos, Nyika D Kruyt

Abstract

Stroke is an important cause of death and disability worldwide. Since high blood pressure is an important risk factor for stroke and stroke recurrence, drugs that lower blood pressure might play an important role in secondary stroke prevention. To investigate whether blood pressure-lowering drugs (BPLDs) started at least 48 hours after the index event are effective for the prevention of recurrent stroke, major vascular events, and dementia in people with stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Secondary objectives were to identify subgroups of people in which BPLDs are effective, and to investigate the optimum systolic blood pressure target after stroke or TIA for preventing recurrent stroke, major vascular events, and dementia. In August 2017, we searched the Trials Registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group and the Cochrane Hypertension Group, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 8), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to August 2017), Embase Ovid (1974 to August 2017), ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN Registry, Stroke Trials Registry, Trials Central, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Portal. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of BPLDs started at least 48 hours after stroke or TIA. Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts, selected eligible trials, extracted the data, assessed risk of bias, and used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence. If necessary, we contacted the principal investigators or corresponding authors for additional data. We included 11 studies involving a total of 38,742 participants: eight studies compared BPLDs versus placebo or no treatment (35,110 participants), and three studies compared different systolic blood pressure targets (3632 participants). The risk of bias varied greatly between included studies. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) of BPLDs were 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.93; 8 RCTs; 35,110 participants; moderate-quality evidence), 0.90 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.04; 4 RCTs; 28,630 participants; high-quality evidence) for major vascular event, and 0.88 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 2 RCTs; 6671 participants; high-quality evidence) for dementia. We mainly observed a reduced risk of recurrent stroke in the subgroup of participants using an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or a diuretic (I2 statistic for subgroup differences 72.1%; P = 0.006). The pooled RRs of intensive blood pressure-lowering were 0.80 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.00) for recurrent stroke and 0.58 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.46) for major vascular event. Our results support the use of BPLDs in people with stroke or TIA for reducing the risk of recurrent stroke. Current evidence is primarily derived from trials studying an ACE inhibitor or a diuretic. No definite conclusions can be drawn from current evidence regarding an optimal systolic blood pressure target after stroke or TIA.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 178 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 178 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 17%
Student > Bachelor 24 13%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 7%
Other 34 19%
Unknown 43 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 18 10%
Neuroscience 9 5%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 51 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 01 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,058,742
of 18,738,748 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,657
of 11,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,466
of 288,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#58
of 180 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,738,748 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,854 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.4. 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 288,296 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 180 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 68% of its contemporaries.