↓ Skip to main content

Tong-xin-luo capsule for patients with coronary heart disease after percutaneous coronary intervention

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Tong-xin-luo capsule for patients with coronary heart disease after percutaneous coronary intervention
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010237.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chen Mao, Xiao-Hong Fu, Jin-Qiu Yuan, Zu-Yao Yang, Vincent CH Chung, Ying Qin, Yafang Huang, Wilson Wai San Tam, Joey SW Kwong, Wei Xie, Jin-Ling Tang

Abstract

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a standard treatment for coronary heart disease (CHD). Restenosis, defined as a 50% reduction in luminal diameter at six months after PCI, indicates a need for revascularisation. Restenosis has proven to be a major drawback to PCI. Tong-xin-luo is one of the prophylactic strategies for cardiovascular events in patients after PCI that is widely used in China, but its efficacy and safety have not been systematically evaluated. To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of Tong-xin-luo capsules in preventing cardiovascular events after PCI in patients with CHD. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), WanFang, Chinese Biomedical Database, Chinese Medical Current Contents, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure from their inception to June 2014. We also searched other resources, including ongoing trials and research registries. We applied no language restrictions. Randomised controlled trials of participants with CHD after PCI were included. Participants in the intervention group received Tong-xin-luo capsules for at least three months. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third review author. The primary outcomes included occurrence of angiographic restenosis and adverse events; the secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, heart failure, angina, all cause mortality, mortality due to any cardiovascular event, use of revascularisation, patient acceptability, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Dichotomous data were measured with risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Sixteen studies involving 1063 participants were identified. The risk of bias for fifteen studies was high and along with imprecision and possible publication bias, this lowered our confidence in the results. There was low quality evidence that Tong-xi-luo reduced the rates of angiographic restenosis (RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34), myocardial infarction (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.66), heart failure (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.62), and use of revascularisation (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.45). There was very low quality evidence for the effect of Tong-xin-luo on all-cause mortality (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.56), angina (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34) and death due to any cardiovascular event (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.12). Adverse events were seldom reported, and included gastrointestinal reactions and nausea. The addition of Tong-xin-luo to conventional Western medicine may possibly prevent restenosis and recurrence of cardiovascular events in patients with CHD after PCI. However, the data are limited by publication bias and high risk of bias for included studies. Further high-quality trials are required to evaluate the potential effects of this intervention.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 21%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Other 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 26 30%

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 06 November 2015.
All research outputs
#10,024,050
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,721
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#190,657
of 276,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#210
of 229 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 276,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 229 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.