↓ Skip to main content

Blood pressure-lowering efficacy of loop diuretics for primary hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
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 (80th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2 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 loop diuretics for primary hypertension
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003825.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vijaya M Musini, Pouria Rezapour, James M Wright, Ken Bassett, Ciprian D Jauca

Abstract

Antihypertensive drugs from the thiazide diuretic drug class have been shown to reduce mortality and cardiovascular morbidity. Loop diuretics are indicated and used to treat hypertension, but a systematic review of their blood pressure-lowering efficacy or effectiveness in terms of reducing cardiovascular mortality or morbidity from randomized controlled trial (RCT) evidence has not been conducted. To determine the dose-related decrease in systolic or diastolic blood pressure, or both, as well as adverse events leading to participant withdrawal and adverse biochemical effects (serum potassium, uric acid, creatinine, glucose and lipids profile) due to loop diuretics versus placebo control in the treatment of people with primary hypertension. We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov to 27 October 2014. We included double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trials of at least three weeks duration comparing loop diuretic with a placebo in people with primary hypertension defined as blood pressure greater than 140/90 mmHg at baseline. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We used weighted mean difference and a fixed effects model to combine continuous outcome data. We analysed the drop outs due to adverse effects using relative risk ratio. Nine trials evaluated the dose-related blood pressure-lowering efficacy of five drugs within the loop diuretics class (furosemide 40 mg to 60 mg, cicletanine 100 mg to 150 mg, piretanide 3 mg to 6 mg, indacrinone enantiomer -2.5 mg to -10.0/+80 mg, and etozolin 200 mg) in 460 people with baseline blood pressure of 162/103 mmHg for a mean duration of 8.8 weeks. The best estimate of systolic/diastolic blood pressure-lowering efficacy of loop diuretics was -7.9 (-10.4 to -5.4) mmHg/ -4.4 (-5.9 to -2.8) mmHg. Withdrawals due to adverse effects and serum biochemical changes did not show a significant difference.We performed additional searches in 2012 and 2014, which found no additional trials meeting the minimum inclusion criteria. Based on the limited number of published RCTs, the systolic/diastolic blood pressure-lowering effect of loop diuretics is -8/-4 mmHg, which is likely an overestimate. We graded the quality of evidence for both systolic and diastolic blood pressure estimates as "low" due to the high risk of bias of included studies and the high likelihood of publication bias. We found no clinically meaningful blood pressure-lowering differences between different drugs within the loop diuretic class. The dose-ranging effects of loop diuretics could not be evaluated. The review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with loop diuretics because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in many of the trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 50%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 1 50%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,892,701
of 12,371,547 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,824
of 8,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,799
of 236,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#115
of 225 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,371,547 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,471 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 236,890 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 225 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.