↓ Skip to main content

Obesity paradox in heart failure: statistical artifact, or impetus to rethink clinical practice?

Overview of attention for article published in Heart Failure Reviews, August 2016
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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Obesity paradox in heart failure: statistical artifact, or impetus to rethink clinical practice?
Published in
Heart Failure Reviews, August 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10741-016-9577-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Richard Charnigo, Maya Guglin

Abstract

The "obesity paradox" in heart failure (HF) is a phenomenon of more favorable prognosis, especially better survival, in obese versus normal-weight HF patients. Various explanations for the paradox have been offered; while different in their details, they typically share the premise that obesity per se is not actually the cause of reduced mortality in HF. Even so, there is a lingering question of whether clinicians should refrain from, or at least soft-pedal on, encouraging weight loss among their obese HF patients. Against the backdrop of recent epidemiological analysis by Banack and Kaufman, which speculates that collider stratification bias may generate the obesity paradox, we seek to address the aforementioned question. Following a literature review, which confirms that obese HF patients are demographically and clinically different from their normal-weight counterparts, we present four hypothetical data sets to illustrate a spectrum of possibilities regarding the obesity-mortality association. Importantly, these hypothetical data sets become indistinguishable from each other when a crucial variable is unmeasured or unreported. While thorough, the discussion of these data sets is intended to be accessible to a wide audience, especially including clinicians, without a prerequisite of familiarity with advanced epidemiology. We also furnish intuitive visual diagrams which depict a version of the obesity paradox. These illustrations, along with reflection on the distinction between weight and weight loss (and, furthermore, between voluntary and involuntary weight loss), lead to our recommendation for clinicians regarding the encouragement of weight loss. Finally, our conclusion explicitly addresses the questions posed in the title of this article.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 33 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 18%
Researcher 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 10 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 39%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 13 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 25 January 2017.
All research outputs
#4,205,578
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from Heart Failure Reviews
#114
of 668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#71,397
of 338,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart Failure Reviews
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 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 668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 338,780 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 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.