↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Understanding short-term blood-pressure-variability phenotypes: from concept to clinical practice

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, June 2018
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 (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
Title
Understanding short-term blood-pressure-variability phenotypes: from concept to clinical practice
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, June 2018
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s164903
Pubmed ID
Authors

Veerendra Melagireppa Chadachan, Min Tun Ye, Jam Chin Tay, Kannan Subramaniam, Sajita Setia

Abstract

Clinic blood pressure (BP) is recognized as the gold standard for the screening, diagnosis, and management of hypertension. However, optimal diagnosis and successful management of hypertension cannot be achieved exclusively by a handful of conventionally acquired BP readings. It is critical to estimate the magnitude of BP variability by estimating and quantifying each individual patient's specific BP variations. Short-term BP variability or exaggerated circadian BP variations that occur within a day are associated with increased cardiovascular events, mortality and target-organ damage. Popular concepts of BP variability, including "white-coat hypertension" and "masked hypertension", are well recognized in clinical practice. However, nocturnal hypertension, morning surge, and morning hypertension are also important phenotypes of short-term BP variability that warrant attention, especially in the primary-care setting. In this review, we try to theorize and explain these phenotypes to ensure they are better understood and recognized in day-to-day clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 134 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 10%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Student > Master 7 5%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 51 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 23%
Engineering 13 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 5%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 59 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 05 May 2020.
All research outputs
#4,094,020
of 24,788,795 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#199
of 1,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,724
of 336,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#5
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,788,795 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. 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 336,286 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 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 66% of its contemporaries.