↓ Skip to main content

Diuretics for heart failure

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 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 (85th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 tweeter
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 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
Diuretics for heart failure
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003838.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rajaa F Faris, Marcus Flather, Henry Purcell, Philip A Poole-Wilson, Andrew JS Coats

Abstract

Chronic heart failure is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Diuretics are regarded as the first-line treatment for patients with congestive heart failure since they provide symptomatic relief. The effects of diuretics on disease progression and survival remain unclear. To assess the harms and benefits of diuretics for chronic heart failure SEARCH METHODS: Updated searches were run in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in The Cochrane Library (CENTRAL Issue 1 of 4, 2011), MEDLINE (1966 to 22 February 2011), EMBASE (1980 to 2011 Week 07) and HERDIN database (1990 to February 2011). We hand searched pertinent journals and reference lists of papers were inspected. We also contacted manufacturers and researchers in the field. No language restrictions were applied. Double-blinded randomised controlled trials of diuretic therapy comparing one diuretic with placebo, or one diuretic with another active agent (e.g. ACE inhibitors, digoxin) in patients with chronic heart failure. Two authors independently abstracted the data and assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of each trial. Extracted data were analysed by determining the odds ratio for dichotomous data, and difference in means for continuous data, of the treated group compared with controls. The likelihood of heterogeneity of the study population was assessed by the Chi-square test. If there was no evidence of statistical heterogeneity and pooling of results was clinically appropriate, a combined estimate was obtained using the fixed-effects model. This update has not identified any new studies for inclusion. The review includes 14 trials (525 participants), 7 were placebo-controlled, and 7 compared diuretics against other agents such as ACE inhibitors or digoxin. We analysed the data for mortality and for worsening heart failure. Mortality data were available in 3 of the placebo-controlled trials (202 participants). Mortality was lower for participants treated with diuretics than for placebo, odds ratio (OR) for death 0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.83; P = 0.02. Admission for worsening heart failure was reduced in those taking diuretics in two trials (169 participants), OR 0.07 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.52; P = 0.01). In four trials comparing diuretics to active control (91 participants), diuretics improved exercise capacity in participants with CHF, difference in means WMD 0.72 , 95% CI 0.40 to 1.04; P < 0.0001. The available data from several small trials show that in patients with chronic heart failure, conventional diuretics appear to reduce the risk of death and worsening heart failure compared to placebo. Compared to active control, diuretics appear to improve exercise capacity.

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 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 228 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 42 18%
Student > Bachelor 41 18%
Unspecified 30 13%
Researcher 23 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Other 75 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 143 62%
Unspecified 33 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 19 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 5%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 21 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 13 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,471,064
of 13,612,359 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,071
of 10,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,541
of 260,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#90
of 186 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,612,359 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 260,319 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 186 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 51% of its contemporaries.