↓ 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, February 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 607)
  • 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)

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
306 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, February 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 1,768 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 306 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 1%
United States 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 289 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 68 22%
Other 44 14%
Researcher 37 12%
Student > Bachelor 34 11%
Student > Postgraduate 27 9%
Other 81 26%
Unknown 15 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 115 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 41 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 36 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 19 6%
Social Sciences 18 6%
Other 49 16%
Unknown 28 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1790. 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 03 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,884
of 15,574,170 outputs
Outputs from Open Heart
#1
of 607 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22
of 290,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Heart
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,574,170 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 607 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.5. 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 290,469 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 22 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.