↓ Skip to main content

Calcium supplementation for prevention of primary hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
23 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
60 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
216 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
Calcium supplementation for prevention of primary hypertension
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010037.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriela Cormick, Agustín Ciapponi, María Luisa Cafferata, José M Belizán

Abstract

Hypertension is a major public health problem that increases the risk of cardiovascular and kidney diseases. Several studies have shown an inverse association between calcium intake and blood pressure. As small reductions in blood pressure have been shown to produce rapid reductions in vascular disease risk even in individuals with normal blood pressure ranges, this review intends to evaluate the effect of calcium supplementation in normotensive individuals as a preventive health measure. To assess the efficacy and safety of calcium supplementation versus placebo or control for reducing blood pressure in normotensive people. We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials up to October 2014. The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) is searched for inclusion in the Group's Specialised Register. We also reviewed reference lists from retrieved studies and contacted authors of relevant papers. We applied no language restrictions. We selected trials that randomised normotensive people to dietary calcium interventions such as supplementation or food fortification versus placebo or control. We excluded quasi-random designs. The primary outcomes were hypertension (defined as blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg) and blood pressure measures. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted the data and assessed the risks of bias. We included 16 trials with 3048 participants. None of the studies reported hypertension as a dichotomous outcome. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure was mean difference (MD) -1.43 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.15 to -0.72) and -0.98 mmHg (95%CI -1.46 to -0.50) respectively. The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for those younger than 35 years (7 trials with 399 participants) was -2.11 mmHg (95%CI -3.58 to -0.64) / -2.61 mmHg (95% CI -3.74, -1.49). The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for those 35 years or more (9 trials with 2649 participants) was -0.96 mmHg (95%CI -1.83 to -0.09) / -0.59 mmHg (95%CI -1.13 to -0.06). The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for women (6 trials with 1823 participants) was -1.45 mmHg (95% CI -2.78 to -0.12) / -0.92 mmHg (95% CI -1.71 to -0.14). The effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure for men (5 trials with 617 participants) was -2.07 (95%CI -3.56 to -0.59] / -1.91 (95%CI -2.80 to -1.02).The quality of evidence for each of these outcomes was high. The effect is consistent in both genders regardless of baseline calcium intake.The effect on systolic blood pressure was 0.08 mmHg (95% CI -2.16 to 2.32) with doses less than 1000 mg, -1.14 mmHg (95% CI -2.01 to -0.27) with 1000 - 1500 mg, and -2.79 mmHg (95% CI -4.71 to -0.86) with more than 1500 mg. The effect on diastolic blood pressure was -0.54 mmHg (95% CI -2.23 to 1.15), -0.71 mmHg (95% CI -1.37 to -0.06) and -1.43 mmHg (95% CI -2.22 to -0.64) respectively. The quality of evidence for each of these outcomes was high.None of the studies reported adverse events. An increase in calcium intake slightly reduces both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in normotensive people, particularly in young people, suggesting a role in the prevention of hypertension. These results should be interpreted with caution, since the proposed biological mechanism explaining the relationship between calcium and blood pressure has not been fully confirmed. The effect across multiple prespecified subgroups and a possible dose response effect reinforce this conclusion. Even small reductions in blood pressure could have important health implications for reducing vascular disease.There is a great need for adequately-powered clinical trials randomising young people. Subgroup analysis should involve basal calcium intake, age, sex, basal blood pressure, and body mass index. We also require assessment of side effects, optimal doses and the best strategy to improve calcium intake.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 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 216 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 215 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 16%
Student > Bachelor 34 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 13%
Researcher 27 13%
Other 11 5%
Other 41 19%
Unknown 39 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 32 15%
Social Sciences 16 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Other 29 13%
Unknown 48 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 09 July 2018.
All research outputs
#764,752
of 14,759,838 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,247
of 11,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,700
of 231,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#67
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,759,838 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 11,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 231,206 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 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.