↓ Skip to main content

High-Dose Atorvastatin vs Usual-Dose Simvastatin for Secondary Prevention After Myocardial Infarction: The IDEAL Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, November 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
7 policy sources
twitter
4 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1381 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
323 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
connotea
2 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
High-Dose Atorvastatin vs Usual-Dose Simvastatin for Secondary Prevention After Myocardial Infarction: The IDEAL Study: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, November 2005
DOI 10.1001/jama.294.19.2437
Pubmed ID
Authors

Terje R. Pedersen, Ole Faergeman, John J. P. Kastelein, Anders G. Olsson, Matti J. Tikkanen, Ingar Holme, Mogens Lytken Larsen, Fredrik S. Bendiksen, Christina Lindahl, Michael Szarek, John Tsai, for the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering Study Group

Abstract

Evidence suggests that more intensive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) than is commonly applied clinically will provide further benefit in stable coronary artery disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 323 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 314 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 59 18%
Student > Master 36 11%
Other 35 11%
Student > Bachelor 31 10%
Student > Postgraduate 27 8%
Other 67 21%
Unknown 68 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 159 49%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 30 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 2%
Other 30 9%
Unknown 82 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 03 November 2020.
All research outputs
#1,156,726
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#9,171
of 36,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,406
of 68,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#22
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 36,846 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 72.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 68,521 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.