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 |
First‐line beta‐blockers versus other antihypertensive medications for chronic type B aortic dissection
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd010426.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kenneth K Chan, Peggy Lai, James M Wright |
| Abstract |
Thoracic aortic dissection (TAD) is a severe and often lethal complication in people with hypertension. Current practice in the treatment of chronic type B aortic dissections is the use of beta-blockers as first-line therapy to decrease aortic wall stress. Other antihypertensive medications, such as calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), have been suggested for the medical therapy of type B TAD. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 3 | 60% |
| Unknown | 2 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 80% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 113 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 12% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 9 | 8% |
| Researcher | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 19% |
| Unknown | 35 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 5% |
| Unknown | 39 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 31 October 2023.
All research outputs
#2,718,611
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,323
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,598
of 235,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#101
of 238 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 235,243 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 238 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.