↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Neurogenic orthostatic hypotension – management update and role of droxidopa

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Neurogenic orthostatic hypotension – management update and role of droxidopa
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s68439
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vijay K Sharma, Joy Vijayan

Abstract

Orthostatic hypotension (OH) is defined as a significant decrease in blood pressure (BP) during the first 3 minutes of standing or a head up on a tilt table. Symptoms of OH are highly variable, ranging from mild light-headedness to recurrent syncope. OH occurs due to dysfunction of one or more components of various complex mechanisms that interplay closely to maintain BP in a normal range during various physiological and associated disease states. Various biochemical and electrophysiological studies are often undertaken to assess the severity and etiology of OH. In addition to the lifestyle modifications, various medications that stimulate the adrenergic receptors or increase central blood volume are used in patients with OH. Droxidopa is a newer agent that increases the levels of norepinephrine in postganglionic sympathetic neurons. Management strategies for OH are presented, including the mechanism of action of droxidopa and various studies performed to assess its efficacy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 4%
United States 1 4%
Unknown 22 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 21%
Other 4 17%
Student > Bachelor 4 17%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 4%
Psychology 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 4 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 26 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,820,045
of 14,860,150 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#132
of 1,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,280
of 235,814 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#7
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,860,150 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,024 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 235,814 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.