↓ Skip to main content

Balloon angioplasty, with and without stenting, versus medical therapy for hypertensive patients with renal artery stenosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
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 (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Balloon angioplasty, with and without stenting, versus medical therapy for hypertensive patients with renal artery stenosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002944.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sara Jenks, Su Ern Yeoh, Bryan R Conway

Abstract

Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is the most common cause of secondary hypertension. Balloon angioplasty with stenting is widely used for the treatment of hypertensive patients with renal artery stenosis but the effectiveness of this procedure in treating hypertension, improving renal function and preventing adverse cardiovascular and renal events remains uncertain. This is an update, to include the results of recent, important large trials, of a review first published in 2003.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 87 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Bachelor 12 13%
Student > Master 11 12%
Other 11 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 12%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 10 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 67%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Psychology 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 14 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 04 March 2016.
All research outputs
#3,633,269
of 15,183,686 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,143
of 11,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,821
of 302,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#167
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,183,686 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 11,143 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. 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 302,885 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.