↓ Skip to main content

Angioplasty (versus non surgical management) for intermittent claudication

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
61 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
Angioplasty (versus non surgical management) for intermittent claudication
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000017.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gerry Fowkes, Ian N Gillespie

Abstract

Intermittent claudication is pain in the legs due to muscle ischaemia associated with arterial stenosis or occlusion. Angioplasty is a technique that involves dilatation and recanalisation of a stenosed or occluded artery. The objective of this review was to determine the effects of angioplasty of arteries in the leg when compared with non surgical therapy, or no therapy, for people with mild to moderate intermittent claudication. Sources searched include the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group's Specialized Trials Register (August 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 3, 2006) and reference lists of relevant articles. The review authors also contacted investigators in the field and handsearched relevant conference proceedings (August 2006). Randomised trials of angioplasty for mild or moderate intermittent claudication. The contact author selected suitable trials and this was checked by the other review author. Both review authors assessed trial quality independently. The contact author extracted data and this was cross checked by the other review author. Two trials with a total of 98 participants were included. The average age was 62 years old with 20 women and 78 men. Participants were followed for two years in one trial and six years in the other.At six months follow up, mean ankle brachial pressure indices were higher in the angioplasty groups than control groups (mean difference 0.17; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.24). In one trial, walking distances were greater in the angioplasty group, but in the other trial, in which controls underwent an exercise programme, walking distances did not show a greater improvement in the angioplasty group. At two years follow up in one trial, the angioplasty group were more likely to have a patent artery (odds ratio 5.5; 95% CI 1.8 to 17.0) but not a significantly better walking distance or quality of life. In the other trial, long term follow up at six years demonstrated no significant differences in outcome between the angioplasty and control groups. These limited results suggest that angioplasty may have had a short term benefit, but this may not have been sustained.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Austria 1 2%
Unknown 59 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 20%
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Unspecified 6 10%
Other 15 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 49%
Unspecified 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Social Sciences 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 12 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 May 2019.
All research outputs
#10,195,156
of 13,361,190 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,429
of 10,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,807
of 271,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#184
of 203 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,361,190 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% 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 271,316 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 203 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.