| Title |
Beta blockers for peripheral arterial disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd005508.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sharath Chandra Vikram Paravastu, Derick A Mendonca, Anthony Da Silva |
| Abstract |
Beta (β) blockers are indicated for use in coronary artery disease (CAD). However, optimal therapy for people with CAD accompanied by intermittent claudication has been controversial because of the presumed peripheral haemodynamic consequences of beta blockers, leading to worsening symptoms of intermittent claudication. This is an update of a review first published in 2008. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Egypt | 1 | 25% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 25% |
| Spain | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 141 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 27 | 19% |
| Unknown | 47 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 4% |
| Psychology | 6 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Unknown | 55 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 March 2020.
All research outputs
#14,657,487
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,845
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#109,715
of 211,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#194
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 211,004 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.