↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological interventions for hypertension in children

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
36 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Pharmacological interventions for hypertension in children
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008117.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chaturvedi S, Lipszyc DH, Licht C, Craig JC, Parekh R, Swasti Chaturvedi, Deborah H Lipszyc, Christoph Licht, Jonathan C Craig, Rulan Parekh

Abstract

Hypertension is a major risk factor for stroke, coronary artery disease and kidney damage in adults. There is a paucity of data on the long-term sequelae of persistent hypertension in children, but it is known that children with hypertension have evidence of end organ damage and are at risk of hypertension into adulthood. The prevalence of hypertension in children is rising, most likely due to a concurrent rise in obesity rates. In children with hypertension, non-pharmacological measures are often recommended as first-line therapy, but a significant proportion of children will eventually require pharmacological treatment to reduce blood pressure, especially those with evidence of end organ damage at presentation or during follow-up. A systematic review of the effects of antihypertensive agents in children has not previously been conducted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 99 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 19%
Student > Master 16 16%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Unspecified 8 8%
Other 34 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 49%
Unspecified 17 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Psychology 4 4%
Other 16 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 16 July 2014.
All research outputs
#633,282
of 12,101,174 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,551
of 7,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,603
of 222,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#30
of 149 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,101,174 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,978 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 222,957 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 149 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.