↓ Skip to main content

Pharmacological interventions for clozapine-induced sinus tachycardia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 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
Pharmacological interventions for clozapine-induced sinus tachycardia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011566.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Lally, Mary J Docherty, James H MacCabe

Abstract

Clozapine is an efficacious treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenia; however its use can be limited by side effect intolerability. Sinus tachycardia is a common adverse event associated with clozapine treatment. Various pharmacological treatments are used to control heart rate increase due to clozapine use and can include a decreased rate of clozapine titration, a switch to a different antipsychotic, or treatment with negative chronotropic drugs. To assess the clinical effects and efficacy of pharmacological interventions for clozapine-induced sinus tachycardia.To systematically review the adverse events associated with pharmacological interventions for clozapine-induced sinus tachycardia. On 23 March 2015, we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Study-Based Register of Trials, which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and registries of clinical trials. There are no language, date, document type or publication status limitations for inclusion of records in the register. Randomised controlled trials comparing pharmacological interventions, at any dose and by any route of administration, for clozapine-induced tachycardia. We independently screened and assessed studies for inclusion using pre-specified inclusion criteria. The electronic searches located three references. However, we did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria. With no studies meeting the inclusion criteria, it is not possible to arrive at definitive conclusions. There are currently insufficient data to confidently inform clinical practice. We cannot, therefore, conclude whether specific interventions, such as beta-blockers, are less effective or more effective than standard courses of alternative treatments for tachycardia. This lack of evidence for the treatment of clozapine-induced tachycardia has implications for research and practice. Well-planned, conducted and reported randomised trials are indicated. One trial is currently underway. Current practice outside of well-designed randomised trials should be clearly justified.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 61 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 22%
Unspecified 13 21%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 11%
Other 14 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 37%
Unspecified 18 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Other 8 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 August 2017.
All research outputs
#7,230,459
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,755
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#122,343
of 264,275 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#123
of 153 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 264,275 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 153 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.