↓ Skip to main content

The effect of replacing saturated fat with mostly n-6 polyunsaturated fat on coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Overview of attention for article published in Nutrition Journal, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 1,529)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
667 Mendeley
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
The effect of replacing saturated fat with mostly n-6 polyunsaturated fat on coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Published in
Nutrition Journal, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12937-017-0254-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Steven Hamley

Abstract

A cornerstone of conventional dietary advice is the recommendation to replace saturated fatty acids (SFA) with mostly n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Many clinical trials aimed to test this advice and have had their results pooled in several meta-analyses. However, earlier meta-analyses did not sufficiently account for major confounding variables that were present in some of those trials. Therefore, the aim of the study was to account for the major confounding variables in the diet heart trials, and emphasise the results from those trials that most accurately test the effect of replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA. Clinical trials were identified from earlier meta-analyses. Relevant trials were categorised as 'adequately controlled' or 'inadequately controlled' depending on whether there were substantial dietary or non-dietary differences between the experimental and control groups that were not related to SFA or mostly n-6 PUFA intake, then were subject to different subgroup analyses. When pooling results from only the adequately controlled trials there was no effect for major CHD events (RR = 1.06, CI = 0.86-1.31), total CHD events (RR = 1.02, CI = 0.84-1.23), CHD mortality (RR = 1.13, CI = 0.91-1.40) and total mortality (RR = 1.07, CI = 0.90-1.26). Whereas, the pooled results from all trials, including the inadequately controlled trials, suggested that replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA would significantly reduce the risk of total CHD events (RR = 0.80, CI = 0.65-0.98, P = 0.03), but not major CHD events (RR = 0.87, CI = 0.70-1.07), CHD mortality (RR = 0.90, CI = 0.70-1.17) and total mortality (RR = 1.00, CI = 0.90-1.10). Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. The suggestion of benefits reported in earlier meta-analyses is due to the inclusion of inadequately controlled trials. These findings have implications for current dietary recommendations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 425 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 667 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 <1%
Unknown 666 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 86 13%
Other 78 12%
Researcher 73 11%
Student > Master 57 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 8%
Other 122 18%
Unknown 200 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 186 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 61 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 46 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 2%
Other 83 12%
Unknown 228 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 334. 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 19 April 2024.
All research outputs
#100,905
of 25,748,735 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#38
of 1,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,224
of 327,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#2
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,748,735 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 327,293 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.