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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Circulating vitamin D, calcium and risk of cerebrovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Epidemiology, September 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10654-012-9729-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rajiv Chowdhury, Sarah Stevens, Heather Ward, Susmita Chowdhury, Ayesha Sajjad, Oscar H. Franco |
| Abstract |
Available literature suggests that both vitamin D and calcium may be associated with a wide range of non-skeletal outcomes. However, epidemiological evidence supporting their individual associations with incident cerebrovascular disease is scarce. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies, published before February 2012 and sought from MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS and the Science Citation Index databases, and reported cerebrovascular disease (defined as any fatal or non-fatal ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, cerebrovascular accident or transient ischemic attack) by circulating vitamin D (25-hydroxy vitamin D [25(OH)D] as active metabolite) and calcium levels. Two independent investigators abstracted information on 25(OH)D and calcium, cerebrovascular outcomes and other characteristics from selected studies. Relative risks (RRs) were pooled by both random and fixed effects meta-analyses and were further examined under different study-level characteristics. Publication bias was assessed with funnel plots and Egger's asymmetry test. From 5,778 initial references, nine unique prospective cohort studies met our inclusion criteria. Seven studies (involving 47,809 participants and 926 cerebrovascular events) focused on circulating 25(OH)D and 3 reported on circulating calcium (22,577 participants and 727 events). For 25(OH)D, in a comparison of individuals in the top third versus those in the bottom third at baseline, the combined RR for cerebrovascular disease, adjusted for several conventional risk factors, was 0.60 (95 % CI 0.48, 0.72). The corresponding RR in the prospective studies that reported on baseline circulating calcium levels for cerebrovascular disease was 1.40 (95 % CI 1.19, 1.64). There was no apparent evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias among included studies. Available data indicate that higher circulating level of vitamin D is associated with a decreased risk of cerebrovascular disease. Conversely, higher circulating calcium concentration is associated with an increased risk of cerebrovascular disease. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 43 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 22% |
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Professor | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 18% |
| Unknown | 8 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 38% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 9% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 11 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 17 October 2012.
All research outputs
#16,237,186
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Epidemiology
#1,433
of 1,815 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#115,788
of 187,967 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Epidemiology
#11
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,815 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.1. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 187,967 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.