↓ Skip to main content

Long working hours and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished data for 603 838 individuals

Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, August 2015
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
536 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
899 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
Title
Long working hours and risk of coronary heart disease and stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished data for 603 838 individuals
Published in
The Lancet, August 2015
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(15)60295-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mika Kivimäki, Markus Jokela, Solja T Nyberg, Archana Singh-Manoux, Eleonor I Fransson, Lars Alfredsson, Jakob B Bjorner, Marianne Borritz, Hermann Burr, Annalisa Casini, Els Clays, Dirk De Bacquer, Nico Dragano, Raimund Erbel, Goedele A Geuskens, Mark Hamer, Wendela E Hooftman, Irene L Houtman, Karl-Heinz Jöckel, France Kittel, Anders Knutsson, Markku Koskenvuo, Thorsten Lunau, Ida E H Madsen, Martin L Nielsen, Maria Nordin, Tuula Oksanen, Jan H Pejtersen, Jaana Pentti, Reiner Rugulies, Paula Salo, Martin J Shipley, Johannes Siegrist, Andrew Steptoe, Sakari B Suominen, Töres Theorell, Jussi Vahtera, Peter J M Westerholm, Hugo Westerlund, Dermot O'Reilly, Meena Kumari, G David Batty, Jane E Ferrie, Marianna Virtanen, IPD-Work Consortium

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 1,590 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 899 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 <1%
United States 5 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
Denmark 2 <1%
Sweden 2 <1%
Finland 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 8 <1%
Unknown 865 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 124 14%
Researcher 114 13%
Student > Bachelor 110 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 93 10%
Other 67 7%
Other 184 20%
Unknown 207 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 248 28%
Psychology 91 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 72 8%
Social Sciences 62 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 3%
Other 158 18%
Unknown 240 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2603. 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 25 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,879
of 25,579,912 outputs
Outputs from The Lancet
#146
of 42,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7
of 277,972 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Lancet
#1
of 468 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,579,912 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 42,826 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 68.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 277,972 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 468 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.