↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence of systolic inter-arm differences in blood pressure for different primary care populations: systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Prevalence of systolic inter-arm differences in blood pressure for different primary care populations: systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, October 2016
DOI 10.3399/bjgp16x687553
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher E Clark, Rod S Taylor, Angela C Shore, John L Campbell

Abstract

Various prevalence figures have been reported for inter-arm differences in blood pressure (IAD); variation may be explained by differing population vascular risk and by measurement method. To review the literature to derive robust estimates of IAD prevalence relevant to community populations. Systematic review and meta-analysis. MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL were searched for cross-sectional studies likely to represent general or primary care populations, reporting prevalence of IAD and employing a simultaneous method of measurement. Using study-level data, pooled estimates of mean prevalence of systolic IADs were calculated and compared using a random effects model. Eighty IAD studies were identified. Sixteen met inclusion criteria: pooled estimates of prevalence for systolic IAD ≥10 mmHg were 11.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 9.1 to 13.6) in hypertension, 7.4% (95% CI = 5.8 to 9.2) in diabetes, and 3.6% (95% CI = 2.3 to 5.0) for a general adult population (P<0.001 for subgroup differences). Differences persisted for higher cut-off values. Prevalences were lower for East Asian than for Western populations and were overestimated by sequential measurement where this could be compared with simultaneous measurement within studies (relative risk for IAD: 2.9 [95% CI = 2.1 to 4.1]). Studies with higher mean absolute systolic pressures had higher prevalences for a systolic IAD ≥10 mmHg (P = 0.04). Prevalences of IADs rise in relation to underlying cardiovascular comorbidities of the population studied, and are overestimated threefold when sequential measurement is used. Population-specific variation in prevalences of IAD should be taken into account in delivering clinical care and in planning future studies.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 21%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 7 21%
Unknown 9 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 11 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 22 December 2020.
All research outputs
#976,342
of 16,652,557 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#508
of 3,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,100
of 273,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#15
of 87 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,652,557 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 273,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 87 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.