↓ Skip to main content

Blood pressure-lowering efficacy of reserpine for primary hypertension

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
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.
Title
Blood pressure-lowering efficacy of reserpine for primary hypertension
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007655.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandy D Shamon, Marco I Perez

Abstract

Many antihypertensive agents exist today for the treatment of primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg, or both). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been carried out to investigate the evidence for these agents. There is, for example, strong RCT evidence that thiazides reduce mortality and morbidity. Some of those trials used reserpine as a second-line therapy. However, the dose-related blood pressure reduction with this agent is not known. The primary objective of this review was to quantify the dose-related efficacy of reserpine versus placebo or no treatment in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) or diastolic blood pressure (DBP), or both.We also aimed to evaluate the dose-related effects of reserpine on mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR), as well as the dose-related effects on withdrawals due to adverse events. We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register (January 1946 to October 2016), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE (January 1946 to October 2016), Embase (January 1974 to October 2016), and ClinicalTrials.gov (all dates to October 2016). We also traced citations in the reference sections of the retrieved studies. Included studies were truly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing reserpine monotherapy to placebo or no treatment in participants with primary hypertension. We assessed methods of randomisation and concealment. We extracted and analysed data on blood pressure reduction, heart rate, and withdrawal due to adverse effects. We found four RCTs (with a total of 237 participants) that met the inclusion criteria, none of which we found through the 2016 update search. The overall pooled effect demonstrates a statistically significant systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction in participants taking reserpine compared with placebo (weighted mean difference (WMD) -7.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) -14.05 to -1.78). Because of significant heterogeneity across the trials, a significant effect in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR) could not be found. A dose of reserpine 0.5 mg/day or greater achieved the SBP effects. However, we could not determine the dose-response pattern because of the small number of trials. We did not combine data from the trial that investigated Rauwiloid against placebo with reserpine data from the remaining three trials. This is because Rauwiloid is a different alkaloid extract of the plant Rauwolfia serpentina, and the dose used is not comparable to reserpine. None of the included trials reported withdrawals due to adverse effects. Reserpine is effective in reducing SBP roughly to the same degree as other first-line antihypertensive drugs. However, we could not make definite conclusions regarding the dose-response pattern because of the small number of included trials. More RCTs are needed to assess the effects of reserpine on blood pressure and to determine the dose-related safety profile before the role of this drug in the treatment of primary hypertension can be established.

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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Unknown 38 97%

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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#3,122,023
of 13,153,703 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,742
of 10,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,065
of 369,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#97
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,153,703 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,503 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.6. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 369,490 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.