↓ 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 (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
128 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 27 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 128 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 125 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 20%
Student > Bachelor 19 15%
Unspecified 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Other 13 10%
Other 41 32%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 54%
Unspecified 24 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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
#685,564
of 13,381,625 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,195
of 10,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,732
of 159,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#27
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,381,625 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 10,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 159,791 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 done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.