↓ Skip to main content

Calcium channel blockers for primary Raynaud's phenomenon

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 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 primary Raynaud's phenomenon
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002069.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Holly Ennis, Michael Hughes, Marina E Anderson, Jack Wilkinson, Ariane L Herrick

Abstract

Calcium channel blockers are the most commonly prescribed drugs for people with primary Raynaud's phenomenon. Primary Raynaud's phenomenon is a common condition characterised by an exaggerated vasospastic response to cold or emotion: classically the digits (fingers and toes) turn white, then blue, then red. This is an update of the review first published in 2014. To assess the effects of different calcium channel blockers for primary Raynaud's phenomenon as determined by attack rates, severity scores, participant-preference scores and physiological measurements. For this update the Cochrane Vascular Trial Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched January 2016) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 12). In addition the TSC searched clinical trials databases. Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of oral calcium channel blockers for the treatment of primary Raynaud's phenomenon. Three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and their quality, and extracted the data. Data extraction included adverse events. We contacted trial authors for missing data. We included seven randomised trials with 296 participants. Four trials examined nifedipine and the remainder nicardipine. Comparisons were with placebo in six trials and with both dazoxiben and placebo in one trial (only the nifedipine versus placebo data were used within this review). Treatment with oral calcium channel blockers was minimally effective in primary Raynaud's phenomenon at decreasing the frequency of attacks (standardised mean difference of 0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.38, P = 0.003). This translates to 1.72 (95% CI 0.60 to 2.84) fewer attacks per week on calcium channel blockers compared to placebo. One trial provided details on duration of attacks reporting no statistically significant difference between the nicardipine and placebo groups (no P value reported). Only two trials provided any detail of statistical comparisons of (unvalidated) severity scores between treatment groups: one of these trials (60 participants) reported a mean severity score of 1.55 on placebo and 1.36 on nicardipine, difference 0.2 (95% CI of difference 0 to 0.4, no P value reported) and the other trial (three participants only with primary Raynaud's phenomenon) reported a median severity score of 2 on both nicardipine and placebo treatment (P > 0.999) suggesting little effect on severity. Participant-preference scores were included in four trials, but in only two were results specific to participants with primary Raynaud's phenomenon, and scoring systems differed between trials: scores differed between treatments in only one trial, in which 33% of participants on placebo and 73% on nifedipine reported improvement in symptoms (P < 0.001). Physiological measurements were included as outcome measures in five trials (different methodologies were used in each): none of these trials found any statistically significant between-treatment group differences. Treatment with calcium channel blockers appeared to be associated with a number of adverse reactions, including headaches, flushing and oedema (swelling). Overall, the trials were classed as being at low or unclear risk of bias; and the quality of the evidence presented was moderate for number of attacks, very low for duration of attacks, high for severity scores and low for patient preference scores. The randomised controlled trials included in this review provide moderate quality evidence that oral calcium channel blockers are minimally effective in the treatment of primary Raynaud's phenomenon as measured by the frequency of attacks and high-quality evidence that they have little effect on severity. We are unable to comment on duration of attacks or on patient preference due to the very low and low quality of evidence as a result of small sample sizes in the included studies and the variable data quality of outcome measures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 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 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 14%
Unknown 6 86%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 29%
Other 1 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 14%
Librarian 1 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 14%
Other 1 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 43%
Unspecified 2 29%
Social Sciences 1 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 20 August 2018.
All research outputs
#735,056
of 13,396,180 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,364
of 10,585 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,509
of 267,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 187 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,396,180 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 10,585 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 267,721 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 187 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.