↓ 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 250)
  • 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
64 news outlets
blogs
10 blogs
twitter
953 tweeters
facebook
253 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
30 Google+ users
reddit
3 Redditors
video
2 video uploaders

Readers on

mendeley
132 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 953 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 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 3%
Brazil 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 118 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 20%
Other 18 14%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Other 38 29%
Unknown 11 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 61 46%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 21 16%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 3%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 11 8%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1383. 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 09 May 2017.
All research outputs
#739
of 7,917,013 outputs
Outputs from Open Heart
#1
of 250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29
of 240,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Heart
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,917,013 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 250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.4. 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 240,826 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.