↓ Skip to main content

Management of Dyslipidemias in Europe and the USA: Same Evidence, Different Conclusions? Can We Find Common Ground?

Overview of attention for article published in Current Cardiology Reports, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (74th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Management of Dyslipidemias in Europe and the USA: Same Evidence, Different Conclusions? Can We Find Common Ground?
Published in
Current Cardiology Reports, April 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11886-017-0857-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ian M. Graham, Alberico L. Catapano

Abstract

An examination of the current ACC/AHA and ESC/EAS Guidelines on the management of dyslipidemias for common ground and differences. There is much common ground. Both note that ASCVD is, in most people, the product of a number of risk factors, notably tobacco exposure, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, inactivity, overweight and diabetes. They stress that risk calculators can help in the assessment of risk in apparently healthy persons. Persons with established ASCVD and many with diabetes or renal impairment are at high to very high risk and warrant intensive risk factor advice. The ACC/AHA Guidelines favor the universal use of statins in all high-risk subjects. In contrast, the ESC/EAS Guidelines favor a goal approach based on total risk and baseline LDL cholesterol level. Perhaps the most important challenges are to stress similarities rather than differences and to simplify communications with both healthcare professionals and the public. Subjects with established vascular disease and renal impairment and many with diabetes are at high to very high risk and need intensive risk factor management. A risk chart or calculator is recommended to assess total risk in apparently healthy persons. The higher the risk, the more intense the risk factor management.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Other 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 10%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 10%
Unspecified 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 12 April 2018.
All research outputs
#4,229,660
of 23,041,514 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#170
of 1,004 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,645
of 310,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#4
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,041,514 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,004 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 310,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 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 73% of its contemporaries.