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 |
Omega 3 fatty acids in cardiovascular disease risk factors: An updated systematic review of randomised clinical trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Nutrition, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.clnu.2017.05.015 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Oscar D. Rangel-Huerta, Angel Gil |
| Abstract |
Several studies and reviews regarding the supplementation of omega-3 LC-PUFAs have been developed during the last years. Indeed, the evidence states that high doses omega-3 LC-PUFAs produce a small but significant decrease in blood pressure in older and hypertensive subjects. Due to the increasing interest in the benefits of LC-PUFAs, we aimed to evaluate the scientific evidence provided in the past five years (2012-2016) on the effects of the intake of omega-3 LC-PUFAs on cardiovascular risk factors such as inflammation and oxidative stress, through a systematic review in PubMed database. Twenty-eight articles were related to cardiovascular disease (CVD) and are included in this systematic review. The studies included healthy subjects and CVD patients; we included the number of subjects, type of study, type and doses of omega-3 LC-PUFAs, primary outcomes, and results. The use of omega-3 LC-PUFAs for ameliorating CVD risk factors can be recommended. However, the administration of omega-3 does not seem to show any benefit for the management of CVD or associated complications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 2 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 129 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 21 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 5% |
| Other | 29 | 22% |
| Unknown | 29 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 17% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 19 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 15 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 13 | 10% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 16 | 12% |
| Unknown | 41 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 30 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,462,286
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Nutrition
#467
of 3,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,146
of 326,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Nutrition
#12
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. 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 326,293 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.