↓ Skip to main content

Calcium channel blockers for pulmonary arterial hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
50 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 channel blockers for pulmonary arterial hypertension
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010066.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhiyu Fan, Yuanjing Chen, Hanmin Liu

Abstract

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is one of several forms of pulmonary hypertension: a chronic disease of the pulmonary vasculature. The mean age at diagnosis is around 50 years old, with increasing prevalence in people over 70 years old (10% to 17%). The median survival to be approximately seven years with one-, three-, five-, and seven-year survival rates from time of diagnostic right-sided heart catheterization were 85%, 68%, 57%, and 49%, respectively. Several studies showed that calcium channel blockers (CCBs) reduce right ventricular hypertrophy and improve long-term haemodynamics in PAH. To evaluate the clinical efficacy and harms of CCBs for people with PAH. The search strategy was provided by the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Search Co-ordinator. The following databases were searched from their inception until September 2014: the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials (CAGR); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library,Issue 8 2014); MEDLINE (1948 to September 2014); EMBASE (1974 to September 2014); ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO trial portal; the Chinese Biomedical Databases (1979 to September 2014); CNKI: the Chinese Journals Full Text Database (1979 to September 2014), the Chinese Journals Full Text Database Century Journals (1979 to September 2014), the Chinese Doctoral Degree Thesis Full Text Database (1979 to September 2014), the Chinese Outstanding Master Degree Thesis Full Text Database (1979 to September 2014); VIP Database (1989 to September 2014) and WANFANG Database (1993 to September 2014). No language restriction was applied. Fully published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CCBs with placebo or other treatment, or comparing CCBs as an adjunct to other treatments with other treatments alone, in patients with PAH. We used standard methods expected by Cochrane. We found one RCT to include in this review but it was published only in abstract form with no data for evaluation. Currently, as there is lack of valid evidence, the efficacy and safety of CCBs is unproven in the treatment of PAH. However, the search strategy used for this review did identify four controlled clinical trials without randomization, three of which suggested treatment with CCBs may be beneficial in PAH. No adverse side effects of CCBs were reported. Confirmation of these findings by RCTs is recommended.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 28%
Unspecified 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Other 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 42%
Unspecified 11 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 02 October 2016.
All research outputs
#3,151,944
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,687
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#62,686
of 245,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#184
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. 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 245,889 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.