↓ Skip to main content

HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for dialysis patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
166 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) for dialysis patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004289.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suetonia C Palmer, Sankar D Navaneethan, Jonathan C Craig, David W Johnson, Vlado Perkovic, Sagar U Nigwekar, Jorgen Hegbrant, Giovanni FM Strippoli

Abstract

People with advanced kidney disease treated with dialysis experience mortality rates from cardiovascular disease that are substantially higher than for the general population. Studies that have assessed the benefits of statins (HMG CoA reductase inhibitors) report conflicting conclusions for people on dialysis and existing meta-analyses have not had sufficient power to determine whether the effects of statins vary with severity of kidney disease. Recently, additional data for the effects of statins in dialysis patients have become available. This is an update of a review first published in 2004 and last updated in 2009.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 166 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 163 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 17%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Researcher 16 10%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Other 15 9%
Other 39 23%
Unknown 30 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 3%
Other 12 7%
Unknown 36 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 14 September 2017.
All research outputs
#957,348
of 16,031,109 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,635
of 11,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,089
of 165,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#32
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,031,109 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 11,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 165,428 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.