| Title |
How Low to Go With Glucose, Cholesterol, and Blood Pressure in Primary Prevention of CVD
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.09.001 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kimberly N. Hong, Valentin Fuster, Robert S. Rosenson, Clive Rosendorff, Deepak L. Bhatt |
| Abstract |
Diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension are modifiable risk factors that predict cardiovascular disease events. The effect of these risk factors on incident cardiovascular disease increases with progressively higher levels of glucose, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure. The thresholds for initiating treatment of these modifiable risk factors and the optimal goals of risk factor modification are a focus of primary prevention research. Although an aggressive approach is appealing, adverse events may occur, and potential physiological barriers may exist. This paper discusses primary prevention of coronary heart disease that may be achieved through modification of diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension by summarizing current guidelines and pertinent clinical trial data from intervention trials that included a primary prevention cohort. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 139 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 States | 26 | 19% |
| Spain | 13 | 9% |
| Mexico | 9 | 6% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 9 | 6% |
| Colombia | 4 | 3% |
| Peru | 4 | 3% |
| Ecuador | 3 | 2% |
| Brazil | 2 | 1% |
| Croatia | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 17 | 12% |
| Unknown | 50 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 91 | 65% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 24 | 17% |
| Scientists | 19 | 14% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 5 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 186 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 20 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 10% |
| Other | 18 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 15 | 8% |
| Other | 35 | 19% |
| Unknown | 58 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 67 | 36% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 6 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 9% |
| Unknown | 71 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 85. 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 08 August 2023.
All research outputs
#509,036
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#1,276
of 16,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,676
of 332,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#45
of 288 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 332,211 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 288 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.