↓ Skip to main content

Vitamin K for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
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 (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
21 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Vitamin K for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011148.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise Hartley, Christine Clar, Obadah Ghannam, Nadine Flowers, Saverio Stranges, Karen Rees

Abstract

A deficiency in vitamin K has been associated with increased calcium deposition and coronary artery calcification, which may lead to cardiovascular disease. To determine the effectiveness of vitamin K supplementation as a single nutrient supplement for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 8 of 12, 2014); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to September week 2 2014); EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (Ovid, 1947 to September 18 2014); Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index, Science (CPCI-S) (both 1990 to 17 September 2014) on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); Health Technology Assessment Database and Health Economics Evaluations Database (Issue 3 of 4, 2014). We searched trial registers and reference lists of reviews for further studies. We applied no language restrictions. We included randomised controlled trials of vitamin K supplementation as a single nutrient supplement, lasting at least three months, and involving healthy adults or adults at high risk of cardiovascular disease. The comparison group was no intervention or placebo. The outcomes of interest were cardiovascular disease clinical events and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. We included only one small trial (60 participants randomised) which overall was judged to be at low risk of bias. The study examined two doses of menaquinone (vitamin K2) over 3 months in healthy participants aged 40 to 65 years. The primary focus of the trial was to examine the effects of menaquinone (subtype MK7) on different matrix Gla proteins (MGP - vitamin K dependent proteins in the vessel wall) at different doses, but the authors also reported blood pressure and lipid levels. The trial did not report on our primary outcomes (cardiovascular disease clinical events) as it was small, short term and conducted in healthy participants.In terms of cardiovascular disease risk factors, no effects were seen for vitamin K2 on blood pressure or lipid levels, although the trial was small and findings are limited. The trial did not report any of our other secondary outcomes. The very limited results of this review highlight the lack of evidence currently available to determine the effectiveness of vitamin K supplementation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, and demonstrate the need for further high quality trials in this area.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 104 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 17%
Researcher 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 14 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Computer Science 5 5%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 24 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 07 March 2020.
All research outputs
#821,837
of 15,971,476 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,252
of 11,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,361
of 251,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,971,476 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 251,182 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 266 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.