↓ Skip to main content

The role of vitamin D deficiency in cardiovascular disease: where do we stand in 2013?

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Toxicology, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
The role of vitamin D deficiency in cardiovascular disease: where do we stand in 2013?
Published in
Archives of Toxicology, October 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00204-013-1152-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefan Pilz, Martin Gaksch, Bríain O’Hartaigh, Andreas Tomaschitz, Winfried März

Abstract

The high worldwide prevalence of vitamin D deficiency is largely the result of low sunlight exposure with subsequently limited cutaneous vitamin D production. Classic manifestations of vitamin D deficiency are linked to disturbances in bone and mineral metabolism, but the identification of the vitamin D receptor in almost every human cell suggests a broader role of vitamin D for overall and cardiovascular health. The various cardiovascular protective actions of vitamin D such as anti-diabetic and anti-hypertensive effects including renin suppression as well as protection against atherosclerosis and heart diseases are well defined in previous experimental studies. In line with this, large epidemiological studies have highlighted vitamin D deficiency as a marker of cardiovascular risk. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on vitamin D have largely failed to show its beneficial effects on cardiovascular diseases and its conventional risk factors. While most prior vitamin D RCTs were not designed to assess cardiovascular outcomes, some large RCTs have been initiated to evaluate the efficacy of vitamin D supplementation on cardiovascular events in the general population. When considering the history of previous disappointing vitamin RCTs in general populations, more emphasis should be placed on RCTs among severely vitamin D-deficient populations who would most likely benefit from vitamin D treatment. At present, vitamin D deficiency can only be considered a cardiovascular risk marker, as vitamin D supplementation with doses recommended for osteoporosis treatment is neither proven to be beneficial nor harmful in cardiovascular diseases.

Mendeley readers

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%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 85 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 25%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 20 23%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 49%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 15 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 07 March 2015.
All research outputs
#3,686,946
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Toxicology
#356
of 2,638 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,779
of 213,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Toxicology
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,638 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. 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 213,176 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.