| Title |
The "smoker's paradox" in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medicine, August 2011
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1741-7015-9-97 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Erlend Aune, Jo Røislien, Mariann Mathisen, Dag S Thelle, Jan Erik Otterstad |
| Abstract |
Smokers have been shown to have lower mortality after acute coronary syndrome than non-smokers. This has been attributed to the younger age, lower co-morbidity, more aggressive treatment and lower risk profile of the smoker. Some studies, however, have used multivariate analyses to show a residual survival benefit for smokers; that is, the "smoker's paradox". The aim of this study was, therefore, to perform a systematic review of the literature and evidence surrounding the existence of the "smoker's paradox". |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 11% |
| Italy | 1 | 11% |
| Spain | 1 | 11% |
| United States | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 5 | 56% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 22% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 91 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Researcher | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 9% |
| Other | 21 | 23% |
| Unknown | 22 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 40 | 44% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 13% |
| Unknown | 22 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 November 2017.
All research outputs
#2,033,005
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,358
of 3,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,745
of 126,092 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#13
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 126,092 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.