↓ Skip to main content

Disease Severity and Staging of Obesity: a Rational Approach to Patient Selection

Overview of attention for article published in Current Atherosclerosis Reports, October 2014
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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
Disease Severity and Staging of Obesity: a Rational Approach to Patient Selection
Published in
Current Atherosclerosis Reports, October 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11883-014-0456-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. B. Whyte, S. Velusamy, S. J. B. Aylwin

Abstract

The increasing prevalence of obesity places ever-increasing cost demands on healthcare systems. One million individuals are eligible for bariatric surgery in the UK, and yet less than 6000 bariatric procedures are performed annually. Bariatric surgery reverses or improves almost all the medical and psychosocial co-morbidities associated with obesity. Although the BMI is a simple method to estimate adiposity at a population level, it is relatively inaccurate within an individual and provides little-to-no indication of overall health status or disease severity. Staging systems overcome the inherent limitations of BMI and allow highly informed decision-making for an individual. At a societal level, this helps to identify those most likely to gain and maximise economic benefit. This review summarises the co-morbidities associated with obesity and the evidence for their improvement following surgery. The rationale for new staging criteria and appropriate patient selection are discussed.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 19%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Other 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 9 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 47%
Psychology 5 12%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 11 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 23 October 2014.
All research outputs
#2,949,795
of 23,940,793 outputs
Outputs from Current Atherosclerosis Reports
#163
of 800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,111
of 257,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Atherosclerosis Reports
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,940,793 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. 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 257,441 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 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 99% of its contemporaries.