↓ Skip to main content

Termedia

Molecular mechanisms of statin intolerance

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Medical Science, May 2016
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Molecular mechanisms of statin intolerance
Published in
Archives of Medical Science, May 2016
DOI 10.5114/aoms.2016.59938
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Gluba-Brzozka, Beata Franczyk, Peter P. Toth, Jacek Rysz, Maciej Banach

Abstract

Statins reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in primary and secondary prevention. Despite their efficacy, many persons are unable to tolerate statins due to adverse events such as hepatotoxicity and myalgia/myopathy. In the case of most patients, it seems that mild-to-moderate abnormalities in liver and muscle enzymes are not serious adverse effects and do not outweigh the benefits of coronary heart disease risk reduction. The risk for mortality or permanent organ damage ascribed to statin use is very small and limited to cases of myopathy and rhabdomyolysis. Statin-induced muscle-related adverse events comprise a highly heterogeneous clinical disorder with numerous, complex etiologies and a variety of genetic backgrounds. Every patient who presents with statin-related side effects cannot undergo the type of exhaustive molecular characterization that would include all of these mechanisms. Frequently the only solution is to either discontinue statin therapy/reduce the dose or attempt intermittent dosing strategies at a low dose.

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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 20%
Student > Bachelor 16 16%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 17 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 22 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 01 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,027,022
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Medical Science
#90
of 1,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,504
of 349,756 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Medical Science
#8
of 127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,760 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 349,756 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 127 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 93% of its contemporaries.