↓ Skip to main content

Effect of Folic Acid Supplementation on Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, September 2011
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Effect of Folic Acid Supplementation on Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
PLOS ONE, September 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0025142
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yu-Hao Zhou, Jian-Yuan Tang, Mei-Jing Wu, Jian Lu, Xin Wei, Ying-Yi Qin, Chao Wang, Jin-Fang Xu, Jia He

Abstract

Folic acid is widely used to lower homocysteine concentrations and prevent adverse cardiovascular outcomes. However, the effect of folic acid on cardiovascular events is not clear at the present time. We carried out a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of folic acid supplementation on cardiovascular outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 1%
Unknown 84 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Student > Master 10 12%
Other 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 8%
Chemistry 2 2%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 13 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 19 February 2016.
All research outputs
#4,295,153
of 23,340,595 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#63,454
of 199,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,633
of 133,125 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#571
of 2,566 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,340,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 199,597 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 133,125 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2,566 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.