↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pharmacological interventions for clozapine-induced sinus tachycardia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
123 Mendeley
Title
Pharmacological interventions for clozapine-induced sinus tachycardia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011566.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Lally, Mary J Docherty, James H MacCabe

Abstract

Clozapine is an efficacious treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenia; however its use can be limited by side effect intolerability. Sinus tachycardia is a common adverse event associated with clozapine treatment. Various pharmacological treatments are used to control heart rate increase due to clozapine use and can include a decreased rate of clozapine titration, a switch to a different antipsychotic, or treatment with negative chronotropic drugs. To assess the clinical effects and efficacy of pharmacological interventions for clozapine-induced sinus tachycardia.To systematically review the adverse events associated with pharmacological interventions for clozapine-induced sinus tachycardia. On 23 March 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions, at any dose and by any route of administration, for clozapine-induced tachycardia. We independently screened and assessed studies for inclusion using pre-specified inclusion criteria. The electronic searches located three references. However, we did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria. With no studies meeting the inclusion criteria, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. There are currently insufficient data to confidently inform clinical practice. We cannot, therefore, conclude whether specific interventions, such as beta-blockers, are less effective or more effective than standard courses of alternative treatments for tachycardia. This lack of evidence for the treatment of clozapine-induced tachycardia has implications for research and practice. Well-planned, conducted and reported randomised trials are indicated. One trial is currently underway. Current practice outside of well-designed randomised trials should be clearly justified.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 123 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Unknown 121 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 20%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Other 11 9%
Researcher 11 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 33 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 26%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 11%
Psychology 10 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 35 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 30 November 2019.
All research outputs
#4,871,223
of 18,304,658 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,144
of 11,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#76,007
of 273,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#105
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,304,658 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,826 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 273,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.