| Title |
Pharmacotherapy for mild hypertension
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd006742.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Diana Diao, James M Wright, David K Cundiff, Francois Gueyffier |
| Abstract |
People with no previous cardiovascular events or cardiovascular disease represent a primary prevention population. The benefits and harms of treating mild hypertension in primary prevention patients are not known at present. This review examines the existing randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence. |
Twitter Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 332 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 46 | 14% |
| United States | 31 | 9% |
| United Kingdom | 15 | 5% |
| France | 15 | 5% |
| Canada | 12 | 4% |
| Netherlands | 10 | 3% |
| Chile | 6 | 2% |
| Sweden | 5 | 2% |
| Brazil | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 48 | 14% |
| Unknown | 139 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 255 | 77% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 42 | 13% |
| Scientists | 28 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 6 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 225 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Norway | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 221 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 35 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 23 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 19 | 8% |
| Other | 44 | 20% |
| Unknown | 46 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 108 | 48% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 4% |
| Psychology | 8 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 8% |
| Unknown | 51 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 387. 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 July 2023.
All research outputs
#75,049
of 24,522,750 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#136
of 12,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#287
of 173,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,522,750 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 173,298 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 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 99% of its contemporaries.