| Title |
Proof of concept in cardiovascular risk: the paradoxical findings in blood pressure and lipid abnormalities
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Vascular Health and Risk Management, July 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/vhrm.s32585 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Flavio Danni Fuchs, Sandra Costa Fuchs, Leila Beltrami Moreira, Miguel Gus |
| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 38 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 20% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 51% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
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
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#541
of 804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#116,373
of 176,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#10
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% 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 176,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.