↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Proof of concept in cardiovascular risk: the paradoxical findings in blood pressure and lipid abnormalities.

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Proof of concept in cardiovascular risk: the paradoxical findings in blood pressure and lipid abnormalities.
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, August 2012
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s32585
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fuchs FD, Fuchs SC, Moreira LB, Gus M

Abstract

High blood pressure and lipoprotein abnormalities were identified by many cohort studies as the major risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Laboratory experiments apparently confirmed their role in the causation of atherosclerosis, but a proof of concept requires the corroboration by clinical trials in human beings. The size of benefit in clinical trials regarding the control of high blood pressure was within the estimations of risk provided by cohort studies. For a reduction of 10 mmHg in systolic blood pressure or 5 mmHg in diastolic blood pressure, the relative risk reduction of coronary heart disease was 22% (95% confidence interval 27%-17%) in a meta-analysis of clinical trials, close to the estimation of reduction of 25% (95% confidence interval 23%-27%) provided by a meta-analysis of cohort studies. The corresponding values for stroke were 41% (95% confidence interval 33%-48%) in clinical trials compared to a cohort risk prediction of 36% (95% confidence interval 34%-38%). This efficacy was shared by all blood pressure-lowering drugs. The same figure has not paradoxically happened with drugs that act over abnormalities of cholesterol and lipoproteins. Only statins, which have other beneficial actions as well, have consistently lowered the incidence of cardiovascular diseases, an efficacy that was not reproduced by older and newer quite potent lipid drugs. The adverse effects of these drugs may nullify their beneficial effects over lipoproteins and abnormalities of lipoproteins may only be surrogate markers of the underlying real risks.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Austria 1 3%
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 32 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 26%
Student > Master 7 20%
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 54%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Computer Science 1 3%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 4 11%

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 30 January 2013.
All research outputs
#2,017,792
of 3,627,970 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#171
of 265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,651
of 280,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#8
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,627,970 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 265 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.7. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% 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 280,317 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.