| Title |
A comprehensive review and meta-analysis of risk factors for statin-induced myopathy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00228-018-2482-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Khoa A. Nguyen, Lang Li, Deshun Lu, Aida Yazdanparast, Lei Wang, Rolf P. Kreutz, Elizabeth C. Whipple, Titus K. Schleyer |
| Abstract |
To aid prescribers in assessing a patient's risk for statin-induced myopathy (SIM), we performed a comprehensive review of currently known risk factors and calculated aggregated odds ratios for each risk factor through a meta-analysis. This meta-analysis was done through four phases: (1) Identification of the relevant primary literature; (2) abstract screening using inclusion and exclusion criteria; (3) detailed review and data extraction; and (4) synthesis and statistical analysis. Out of 44 papers analyzed from 836 papers searched from MEDLINE, 18 different potential risk factors were collected, divided into three categories: three demographics (11 papers), ten clinical factors (31 papers), and five pharmacogenetics/biomarkers (12 papers). Risk factors significant for myopathy and/or rhabdomyolysis included age, gender, diabetes, renal impairment, cardiovascular disease, certain interacting drugs, and mutations of the SLCO1B1 gene, which encodes a transporter protein in the liver. Several factors, such as gender, race, cardiovascular disease, and the GATM gene, which encodes a protein for creatine synthesis, appeared to be protective in terms of the outcomes of interest. This comprehensive assessment of risk factors can help support clinicians in reducing the incidence of SIM in their patient population on statins. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 33% |
| Spain | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 86 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 12% |
| Researcher | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 20% |
| Unknown | 20 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 20% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 17 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 12% |
| Unknown | 27 | 31% |
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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#3,721,136
of 23,065,445 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#329
of 2,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,483
of 330,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
#7
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,065,445 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 2,572 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 330,062 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.