| Title |
The obesity paradox in chronic disease: facts and numbers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, March 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13539-012-0059-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mitja Lainscak, Stephan von Haehling, Wolfram Doehner, Stefan D. Anker |
| Abstract |
Body size, particularly large, is a matter of concern among the lay public. Whether this is justified depends upon the state of health and should be judged individually. For patients with established chronic disease, there is sufficient evidence to support the benefits of large body size, i.e., the obesity paradox. This uniform finding is shared over a variety of cardiovascular, pulmonary, and renal diseases and is counterintuitive to the current concepts on ideal body weight. The scientific community has to increase the awareness about differences for optimal body size in health and disease. Simultaneously, clinicians have to be aware about body weight dynamics implications and should interpret the changes in the context of an underlying disease in order to implement the best available management. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Japan | 1 | 1% |
| Portugal | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 83 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 17 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 20% |
| Unknown | 15 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 39% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Psychology | 4 | 5% |
| Engineering | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 21 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 01 January 2013.
All research outputs
#6,573,285
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
#623
of 1,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,554
of 169,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,280 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 169,055 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.