↓ Skip to main content

Inflammatory Disorders

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 45: Carotid Artery Intima-Media Thickness in Hypertensive Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea.
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
Carotid Artery Intima-Media Thickness in Hypertensive Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea.
Chapter number 45
Book title
Inflammatory Disorders
Published in
Advances in experimental medicine and biology, October 2014
DOI 10.1007/5584_2014_45
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-3-31-910011-1, 978-3-31-910012-8
Authors

Kostrzewska M, Piorunek T, Hoffmann K, Batura-Gabryel H, Cofta S, M. Kostrzewska, T. Piorunek, K. Hoffmann, H. Batura-Gabryel, S. Cofta

Abstract

In this study we determined the relationship between the severity of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and body mass index (BMI), systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP), and carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) in 30 hypertensive male patients, aged 30-70, with newly diagnosed OSA (15 with moderate OSA - Group A, and 15 with severe OSA - Group B) and 20 non-OSA hypertensive individuals (Group C). We revealed significant differences in cIMT between Groups B and C (0.9 ± 0.3 vs. 0.6 ± 0.1 mm and 1.0 ± 0.4 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2 mm in the right and left common carotid arteries, respectively; p <0.05). Increased carotid intima-media thickness in severe OSA was accompanied by higher systolic and diastolic blood pressures compared with both moderate OSA and control subjects. We conclude that in severe OSA increased blood pressure goes in tandem with the thickness of carotid intima-media, which helps explain increased cardiovascular risk in these patients.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 18%
Lecturer 1 9%
Student > Postgraduate 1 9%
Unknown 7 64%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 1 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 9%
Chemistry 1 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 9%
Unknown 7 64%
Attention Score in Context

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 18 March 2015.
All research outputs
#18,403,994
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#3,312
of 4,949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,724
of 255,865 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in experimental medicine and biology
#39
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. 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 255,865 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.