| 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 |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2,002 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 381 | 19% |
| United States | 316 | 16% |
| Australia | 95 | 5% |
| Canada | 72 | 4% |
| Spain | 46 | 2% |
| South Africa | 30 | 1% |
| Ireland | 24 | 1% |
| Netherlands | 21 | 1% |
| India | 18 | <1% |
| Other | 190 | 9% |
| Unknown | 809 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1501 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 315 | 16% |
| Scientists | 139 | 7% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 35 | 2% |
| Unknown | 12 | <1% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 387 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | <1% |
| United States | 3 | <1% |
| Brazil | 2 | <1% |
| Spain | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Finland | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Thailand | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 372 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 74 | 19% |
| Researcher | 47 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 47 | 12% |
| Other | 43 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 33 | 9% |
| Other | 97 | 25% |
| Unknown | 46 | 12% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 126 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 51 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 40 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 26 | 7% |
| Social Sciences | 21 | 5% |
| Other | 62 | 16% |
| Unknown | 61 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1802. 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 April 2024.
All research outputs
#5,699
of 25,744,802 outputs
Outputs from Open Heart
#3
of 1,197 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40
of 366,684 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Heart
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,744,802 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 1,197 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.1. 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 366,684 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 15 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 93% of its contemporaries.