| Title |
Coffee Consumption and Cardiovascular Health: Getting to the Heart of the Matter
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Cardiology Reports, August 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11886-013-0403-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Salome A. Rebello, Rob M. van Dam |
| Abstract |
As coffee-consumption is a widespread tradition, its possible impact on health has been of considerable interest. This review examines the effects of coffee on cardiovascular risk, outlines underlying biological mechanisms, and discusses implications for public health. In the past, coffee was often viewed as a cardiovascular risk-factor. However, in meta-analyses of recent well-controlled prospective epidemiologic studies, coffee-consumption was not associated with risk of coronary heart disease and weakly associated with a lower risk of stroke and heart failure. Also, available evidence largely suggests that coffee-consumption is not associated with a higher risk of fatal cardiovascular events. In randomized trials coffee-consumption resulted in small increases in blood pressure. Unfiltered coffee increased circulating LDL cholesterol and triglycerides concentrations, but filtered coffee had no substantial effects on blood lipids. In summary, for most healthy people, moderate coffee consumption is unlikely to adversely affect cardiovascular health. Future work should prioritize understanding the effects of coffee in at-risk populations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 4 | 24% |
| Japan | 3 | 18% |
| Norway | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 9 | 53% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 68 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 4% |
| Researcher | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Unknown | 46 | 68% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 46 | 68% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 August 2021.
All research outputs
#1,200,121
of 24,676,547 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#48
of 1,095 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,380
of 205,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#3
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,676,547 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,095 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 205,667 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.