↓ Skip to main content

Evidence from randomised controlled trials did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Open Heart, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 288)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
66 news outlets
blogs
10 blogs
twitter
984 tweeters
facebook
256 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
30 Google+ users
reddit
3 Redditors
video
4 video uploaders

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
Title
Evidence from randomised controlled trials did not support the introduction of dietary fat guidelines in 1977 and 1983: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Open Heart, January 2015
DOI 10.1136/openhrt-2014-000196
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zoë Harcombe, Julien S Baker, Stephen Mark Cooper, Bruce Davies, Nicholas Sculthorpe, James J DiNicolantonio, Fergal Grace

Abstract

National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the US and UK governments, respectively, with the ambition of reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) by reducing fat intake. To date, no analysis of the evidence base for these recommendations has been undertaken. The present study examines the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) available to the US and UK regulatory committees at their respective points of implementation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 984 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 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 6 3%
United States 3 2%
Spain 2 1%
Brazil 2 1%
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 162 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 41 23%
Other 32 18%
Researcher 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 11%
Student > Postgraduate 15 8%
Other 51 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 88 49%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 28 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 9%
Social Sciences 10 6%
Unspecified 8 4%
Other 31 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1417. 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 15 November 2017.
All research outputs
#868
of 8,643,017 outputs
Outputs from Open Heart
#1
of 288 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29
of 245,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Heart
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,643,017 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 288 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 245,709 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 23 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 95% of its contemporaries.