| Title |
Overview of clinical use and side effect profile of valsartan in Chinese hypertensive patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, December 2013
|
| DOI | 10.2147/dddt.s38617 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Qi-Fang Huang, Yan Li, Ji-Guang Wang |
| Abstract |
We reviewed the Chinese and English literature for the efficacy and safety data of valsartan monotherapy or combination therapy in Chinese hypertensive patients. According to the data of ten randomized controlled trials, valsartan monotherapy was as efficacious as another angiotensin receptor blocker or other classes of antihypertensive drugs, excepting the slightly inferior diastolic blood pressure-lowering effect in comparison with calcium channel blockers. According to the data of six randomized controlled trials, valsartan combination, with hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, or nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system, was more efficacious than monotherapy of valsartan, amlodipine, or nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system. According to these trials, valsartan had an acceptable tolerability, regardless of whether it was used as monotherapy or in combination therapy. Nonetheless, several rare side effects have been reported, indicating that it should still be used with caution. This is of particular importance given that there are millions of hypertensive patients, worldwide, currently exposed to the drug. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 15% |
| Researcher | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 30% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 14 November 2019.
All research outputs
#7,856,238
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#524
of 2,254 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,505
of 321,951 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#9
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,254 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 321,951 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 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 70% of its contemporaries.