| Title |
Unintended effects of statins from observational studies in the general population: systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, March 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-12-51 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ana Filipa Macedo, Fiona Claire Taylor, Juan P Casas, Alma Adler, David Prieto-Merino, Shah Ebrahim |
| Abstract |
Efficacy of statins has been extensively studied, with much less information reported on their unintended effects. Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on unintended effects is often insufficient to support hypotheses generated from observational studies. We aimed to systematically assess unintended effects of statins from observational studies in general populations with comparison of the findings where possible with those derived from randomized trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 8 | 30% |
| United States | 5 | 19% |
| Canada | 3 | 11% |
| Finland | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 8 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 15 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 22% |
| Scientists | 4 | 15% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 236 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Greece | 1 | <1% |
| Romania | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 233 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 34 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 32 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 31 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 30 | 13% |
| Other | 17 | 7% |
| Other | 60 | 25% |
| Unknown | 32 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 97 | 41% |
| Psychology | 16 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 16 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 10 | 4% |
| Other | 40 | 17% |
| Unknown | 46 | 19% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 57. 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 23 August 2022.
All research outputs
#747,483
of 25,391,701 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#528
of 4,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,884
of 237,414 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#4
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,391,701 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,009 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 237,414 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.