You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Garlic for hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Phytomedicine, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.phymed.2014.12.013 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
X.J. Xiong, P.Q. Wang, S.J. Li, X.K. Li, Y.Q. Zhang, J. Wang |
| Abstract |
In the past decade, garlic has become one of the most popular complementary therapies for blood pressure (BP) control used by hypertensive patients. Numerous clinical studies have focused on the BP-lowering effect of garlic, but results have been inconsistent. Overall, there is a dearth of information available to guide the clinical community on the efficacy of garlic in hypertensive patients. To systematically review the medical literature to investigate the current evidence of garlic for the treatment of hypertension. PubMed, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE were searched for appropriate articles from their respective inceptions until August 2014. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials comparing garlic vs. a placebo in patients with hypertension were considered. Papers were independently reviewed by two reviewers and were analyzed using Cochrane software Revman 5.2. A total of seven randomized, placebo-controlled trials were identified. Compared with the placebo, this meta-analysis revealed a significant lowering effect of garlic on both systolic BP (WMD: -6.71 mmHg; 95% CI: -12.44 to -0.99; P = 0.02) and diastolic BP (WMD: -4.79 mmHg; 95% CI: -6.60 to -2.99; P < 0.00001). No serious adverse events were reported in any of the trials. The present review suggests that garlic is an effective and safe approach for hypertension. However, more rigorously designed randomized controlled trials focusing on primary endpoints with long-term follow-up are still warranted before garlic can be recommended to treat hypertensive patients. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 14% |
| Spain | 2 | 6% |
| Israel | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Comoros | 1 | 3% |
| Hong Kong | 1 | 3% |
| Austria | 1 | 3% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 3% |
| Colombia | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 18 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 25 | 69% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 19% |
| Scientists | 4 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 243 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Egypt | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 238 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 74 | 30% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 10% |
| Other | 18 | 7% |
| Researcher | 13 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 34 | 14% |
| Unknown | 69 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 56 | 23% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 31 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 21 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 20 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 27 | 11% |
| Unknown | 79 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. 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 18 April 2024.
All research outputs
#543,901
of 25,736,439 outputs
Outputs from Phytomedicine
#46
of 2,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,782
of 362,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Phytomedicine
#3
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,736,439 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 2,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. 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 362,464 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 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.